Age of the Universe

How old is the world? Ancient commentators propose that the world may be simultaneously young and old.

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubble telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.

Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world, relative to the unchanging picture of the Torah. (I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science.)

So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.

This ancient commentary was finalized long before Hubble was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubble or any other modern scientific data influencing these concepts.

Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology ― the deep physics of understanding the universe ― was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American ― the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. After 3000 years of arguing, science has come to agree with the Torah.

Starting from Rosh Hashanah

How long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5700-plus years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community?

The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.

Now where do we make the zero point? On Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, upon blowing the shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam ― today is the birthday of the world."

This verse might imply that Rosh Hashanah commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashanah commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam.

We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.

That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashanah commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate.

Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? Because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.

Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years and beget Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

Deeper into the Text

In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-a-vis the Bible, are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. At Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that God couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days for an infinitely powerful God? No problem.

So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.

The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Torah is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. Just as we look for the deeper readings in science to learn the working of nature, so too we need to look for the deeper readings in Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 25:11 alluded to this. “A word well spoken is like apples of Gold in a silver dish.” Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed interprets this proverb: The silver dish is the literal text of the Torah, as seen from a distance. The apples of gold are the secrets held within the silver dish of the Torah Text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the Text that expand the meaning way beyond its simple reading. It's those subtleties I want to see.

Natural History and Human History

There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the Bible’s calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of God in the universe, "consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts ― 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."

Moses says you can see God's fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of life in the universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn't impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward ― the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of God.

I recently met in Jerusalem with Professor Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winning physicist. We were talking science, and as the conversation went on, I said, "What about spirituality, Leon?" And he said to me, "Schroeder, I'll talk science with you, but as far as spirituality, speak to the people across the street, the theologians." But then he continued, and he said, "But I do find something spooky about the people of Israel coming back to the Land of Israel."

Interesting. The first part of Moses' statement, "Consider the days of old" ― about the Six Days of Genesis ― that didn't impress Prof. Lederman. But the "Years of the many generations" ― human history ― that impressed him. Prof. Lederman found nothing spooky about the Eskimos eating fish at the Arctic circle. And he found nothing spooky about Greeks eating Musika in Athens. But he finds something real spooky about Jews eating falafel on Jaffa Street. Because it shouldn't have happened. It doesn't make sense historically that the Jews would come back to the Land of Israel. Yet that's what happened.

And that's one of the functions of the Jewish People in the world. To act as a demonstration. We just want people in the world to understand that there is some monkey business going on with history that makes it not all just random. That there's some direction to the flow of history. And the world has seen it through us. It's not by chance that Israel is on the front page of the New York Times more than anyone else.

What is a "Day?"

Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5700-plus years, we must add to that "plus six days."

A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. My 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "One thousand years in Your (God's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.

The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word ― "choshech" ― means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.

Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe.

Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" ― but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet ― the root of "erev" ― is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" ― "boker" ― is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

The Torah wants us to be amazed by this flow, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

The Creation of Time

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.

Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That's a phenomenal insight. Time was created. You can't grab time. You don't even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah's use of the phrase, "Day One." And that's exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself.

Einstein's Law of Relativity

Looking back in time, a scientist will view the universe as being 15 billion years old. But what is the Bible's view of time? Maybe it sees time differently. And that makes a big difference. Albert Einstein taught us that Big Bang cosmology brings not just space and matter into existence, but that time is part of the nitty gritty. Time is a dimension. Time is affected by your view of time. How you see time depends on where you're viewing it. A minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched out so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. It's a small difference, but it's measurable and measured.

The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.

If you could ripen oranges on the Sun, they would take longer to ripen. Why? Because time goes more slowly. Would you feel it going more slowly? No, because your biology would be part of the system. If you were living on the Sun, your heart would beat more slowly. Wherever you are, your biology is in synch with the local time. And a minute or an hour where ever you are is exactly a minute or an hour.

If you could look from one system to another, you would see time very differently. Because depending on factors like gravity and velocity, you will perceive time in a way that is very different. The flow of time varies one location to another location. Hence the term: the law of relativity.

Here's an example: One evening we were sitting around the dinner table, and my 11-year-old daughter asked, "How you could have dinosaurs? How you could have billions of years scientifically ― and thousands of years Biblically at the same time? So I told her to imagine a planet where time is so stretched out that while we live out two years on Earth, only three minutes will go by on that planet. Now, those places actually exist, they are observed. It would be hard to live there with their conditions, and you couldn't get to them either, but in mental experiments you can do it. Two years are going to go by on Earth, three minutes are going to go by on the planet. So my daughter says, "Great! Send me to the planet. I'll spend three minutes there. I'll do two years worth of homework. I'll come back home in three minutes, and no more homework for two years."

Nice try. Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she's 11 years and 3 minutes.

Had she looked down on Earth from that planet, her perception of Earth time would be that everybody was moving very quickly because in one of her minutes, hundreds of thousands of our minutes would pass. Whereas if we looked up, she'd be moving very slowly.

But which is correct? Is it three years? Or three minutes? The answer is both. They're both happening at the same time. That's the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there are literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days.

Time Travel and the Big Bang

But how does this help to explain the Bible? Because anyway the Talmud and Rashi and Nahmanides (that is the kabala) all say that Six Days of Genesis were six regular 24-hour periods not longer than our work week!

Let's look a bit deeper. The classical Jewish sources say that before the beginning, we don't really know what there is. We can't tell what predates the universe. The Midrash asks the question: Why does the Bible begin with the letter Beit? Because Beit (which is written like a backwards C) is closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction. Hence we can't know what comes before ― only after. The first letter is a Beit ― closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction.

Nachmanides expands the statement. He says that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" ― all the ages and all the secrets of the world.

Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was God. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" ― very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance ― so thin that it has no essence ― turned into matter as we know it.

Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" -- from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence ― that's when the Biblical clock of the six days starts.

Science has shown that there's only one "substance-less substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.

Nachmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy ― light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays ― all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The Biblical clock begins here.

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One" (and not “a first day”) comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective. Einstein proved that time varies from place to place in the universe, and that time varies from perspective to perspective in the universe. The Bible says there is "evening and morning Day One".

Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses and Mount Sinai ― long after Adam ― the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. There was a lot of time with which to compare Day One. Torah would have said "A First Day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the First Day with which to compare it. You could say on the second day, "what happened on the first day." But as Nahmanides pointed out, you could not say on the first day, "what happened on the first day" because "first" implies comparison ― an existing series. And there was no existing series. Day One was all there was.

Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there were six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, How old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is approximately 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity. But what would those billions of years be as perceived from near the beginning looking forward?

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.

Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light, and every second it's going to pulse. Every second ― pulse. Pulse. Pulse. It shoots the light out, and then billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish, and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light is imprinted (printing information on light is called fiber optics ― sending information by light), "I'm sending you a pulse every second." And then a second goes by and the next pulse is sent.

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that does not mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by its own space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of traveling, the universe and space are stretching. As space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart.

Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we say, "Wow ― a pulse!" And written on it is "I'm sending you a pulse every second." You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive another second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because depending on how much time this pulse of light has traveled through space, will determine the amount of stretching of space between the pulses. That's standard astronomy.

15 Billion or Six Days?

Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small ― billions of times smaller ― the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.

What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of a hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step.

Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

• The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

• The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

• The fourth 24 hour day ― one billion years.

• The fifth 24 hour day ― one-half billion years.

• The sixth 24 hour day ― one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Dr. Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and double-Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught physics for seven years. While a consultant at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission he participated in the formulation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties with the former Soviet Union and witnessed the testing of six atomic bombs. He has served as a consultant to various governments worldwide and has been published in Time, Newsweek and Scientific American. He is the author of Genesis and the Big Bang, the discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible, now in seven languages. He is also the author of The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God. Dr. Schroeder is currently a lecturer at Aish Jerusalem for the Discovery Seminar, Essentials program, Jerusalem Fellowships, and Executive Learning Center ― focusing on the topics of evolution, cosmology, and age of the universe.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 227

(189)
K Bart,
August 28, 2017 9:17 PM

Thank you Dr. Schroeder!!!

I am always looking for harmony between Scripture and science. I have all four of Dr. Schroeder's major books in hardback as a permanent asset to my library. I am reading them through for the 2nd time. Thank you so much, Dr. Schroeder for your scholarly contributions to both science and Genesis!

(188)
Mattaniah,
August 13, 2017 3:19 PM

Age of dinosaur fossils

This explanation accounts for the first "3 days" of creation but neglects to mention that mammals were not created until day 6. If dinosaurs were not created until after the implements by which we measure time then we must determine all mammalian & Reptilian fossils to be the same age as man. Furthermore, from a spiritual explanation we cannot accept death prior to sin therefore the whole premise of macroevolution is unacceptable to the true student of the Bible.

(187)
Daryl,
September 13, 2016 11:30 AM

Outstanding

Thank you Dr. Schroeder for this well executed and informative article.

(186)
natan,
August 8, 2016 12:18 AM

nachmanides

Nachmanidies also writes unequivocally (Genesis 1, 3) that "you should know, that the days mentioned in the creation of the world with heaven and earth were literal days, made up of hours and minutes, and they were like six workdays, as the literal meaning of the passages" - six 24 hour days.

(185)
Jay,
May 14, 2016 2:39 PM

Wow

I just read this. It is a bit confusing to my mind but I get the basics and all I can say is wow.

(184)
DEEQA,
April 12, 2016 6:23 PM

DIS AGREE

(183)
William,
January 4, 2016 5:29 PM

Erev and Boker for Evening and Morning

I appreciate the discussions here though I have come to locate them after 10 years, but quite fresh.I just want to know if there have been any discussions either here or in the book on what prophet Isaiah says in Isaiah 65:17 about a new heaven and a new earth in reference to, from Erev to Boker, God creating order from disorder as discussed above under the sub-heading "What is a "Day?" Also in Isa 24:5 it talks about the earth being defile under it's inhabitants. I take it that the inhabitants bring about disorderliness. Could you share on this please. Thanks

(182)
JSam,
December 22, 2015 10:03 PM

a case of making torah fit science

This relies on one scientific fact, the speed of light, which can't be estimated coming from its source, only in current after Adam time frame. from its source it would be much slower, and faster at its receptor, thus no way to really measure the first light from the first energy, but where did this first strand of energy emanate?

(181)
theophilus,
December 1, 2015 10:49 AM

More than one creation?

When I read vs.1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Something must have happened between vs 1 and vs 2. Now the earth is void, and there is water. Then God very systematically and chronologically develops a new creation. Looks like this present earth needs newness also Would not be surprised if sometime in the future there will be a 'new heavens and a new earth' also.

William Allman,
June 7, 2016 7:37 PM

translation vs. meaning

The words translated "heavens" and "earth" in the Bible are from root words that mean "soft" and "firm". Personally, I interpreted this as creating a distinction between energy and matter, hence the next part "the earth was void and without form" from the Hebrew words "tohu bohu" meaning chaotic, without order. A much deeper understanding of this is possible only by delving into the original language, as the author has done, and studying the commentators he mentions.

(180)
anj,
October 25, 2015 10:21 PM

thank you, i liked this very much.

(179)
Daniel V. Porter,
September 1, 2015 7:26 PM

Nachmanides questions

Dr. Schroeder,It is a very fine article and fits with my own findings. It seems that a/the fulcrum of your thesis is Nachmanides interpretation of Torah. I do not see a citation. And, I wonder if you interact with him critically somewhere else. Thank you, Dr. Porter

(178)
Mark Florida,
July 19, 2015 3:37 PM

Man's time measurements off by Noah's flood

The dating methods used by scientists are deeply flawed. They do not believe in Noah's flood, so the current earth condition was shaped very quickly. Light may accelerate. Our measurements are over a relatively short distance and men's measurements are not very accurate. Men adjust the data to fit the theory.

(177)
Kris,
June 19, 2015 2:32 PM

Thank you for your insigth

What a wonderful commentary. I followed your explanation every step of the way and marveled at your understanding. I thank you for imparting such knowledge to one who was seeking. I have never considered two different time frames before and after Adam's creation. I asked my father once where dirt came from and he said that dirt have always been there. I had to stop and think before an argument started (because I wanted him to know that God created dirt) and a revelation hit me that my father was right. Time started when the first atom came into being and the electrons started moving around the nucleus. So, as far as my father was concerned, dirt "have always been there" which is a statement encompassing time (always). Is it correct to say "Time does not pass without matter moving" and "Matter does not move without time"?

(176)
Saul,
April 1, 2015 7:14 AM

The "Ancient of Days" is not a several 24h days or thousands of years old.

It was axiomatic to ancient Israel that God created the world. They saw evidence of the Almighty control the laws of nature time and time and time again: The 10 plagues, the Red Sea, Joshua at Bet Horon, the weather in eretz Israel.... need anything more be said? ONLY a creator can do those things.It is a FACT that the earth is billions of years old and that the universe is older but that does not contradict that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning in 6 days because in the Bible the word day (yom) does not always mean 24 hours or 1000 years. Believing that it does is a conclusion but not the only one and since it is a fact that the world is billions then the creation yom must be of another time length (6 undisclosed time periods of varying undisclosed lengths)."This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the day that...created.." In the preceding, the word day is also use to mean a length of time other than 24 hours or 1000 years. It would be speculative for any Bible commentator other than a prophet to say that God created the world in 24 hours no matter how he tried to reconcile that view. "Remember your Grand Creator in the days of your young manhood..." The verse obviously means the time period of youth. Again throughout the Bible the word yom is used to mean different lengths of time.

The above argument can be used to silence foolish skeptics that challenge the truth of the Torah about the Creator. Since the length of each Creation Day is undisclosed in the Bible, should we speculate or impose personal beliefs as truth coming from God?

(175)
Nathan,
January 26, 2015 4:17 PM

6 days, then rest, then what?

Maybe it is just me, but as I read the story of creation, God created man on the 6th day, male and female He created them. Now God rested on the 7th day, and the chapter closes. Opening up the next chapter is the creation of Adam, and as the author of this piece states, the calendar begins with this creation. So, prior to the creation of Adam, we have an indeterminate '6 days' in which the world was going through many changes, including the creation of man (small m) and his female counterpart. It would be silly to stare at the fossil evidence and deny pre-history, including the evidence we seem to have that points to some manner of human being roaming the earth more than 6,000 years ago. Could it be that God created a man/animal with intelligence and skill greater than any other animal thousands of years before Adam? A man without a spirit until He breathed life into Adam and then our history begins. Maybe the Scriptures are out of order chronologically, maybe the man and woman referred to on the 6th day were Adam and Eve, maybe God is intentionally trying to confuse us by telling us that Adam was on the earth quite a while before the creation of Eve, yet He tells us that He created man, male and female, on the 6th day.

(174)
Anonymous,
January 22, 2015 3:21 PM

Sorry

When you say you are using only Biblical texts to arrive to your conclusions , I am afraid that you have cut what the Sages know about the Universe...So you did not make any reference to this : http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?mobile=yes

i wonder why ?

(173)
Lloyd,
December 17, 2014 5:28 PM

Guru=Cult

Kent Hovind once said, "anytime you need a Guru to understand the Bible it becomes a cult."God in all his wisdom wrote the Bible in a way so that we could understand it.There are always many ways that people can look at things. E.g. An evolutionist scientist might say the Colorado river cut out the Grand Canyon over billions of years(Impossible cause the river would have to run uphill) A creation Scientist would look at it differently - By looking at satellite photos creation Scientists have concluded that the Grand canyon was cause by rapid runoff after the Flood(yes Noah´s Flood). Which is the theory I believe. So you see this article is once again trying line up the Bible with Science, when it should be the other way around, we know that the Bible is true therefore lets looks that science from a Biblical starting point.

(172)
Anonymous,
November 4, 2014 11:40 AM

15 or 16?

I agree with the assessments made here as a possibility. I do not limit God to the perspective of a feeble human mind. With this I ask. Why then does the Maya/Aztec calendar equate a 16 billion age of our universe? Respectfully.

Can you tell me more about this survey of American scientists, because this answer by two-thirds of them that the universe was eternal and that there was no beginning isn't consistent with my recollection of the history of cosmology.Edwin Hubble discovered the redshifts of the galaxies and the expansion of the universe during the 1920s, and as a result Georges Lemaitre, in 1927, proposed that the universe began with a very dense 'primeval atom' . As I remember it, this 'primeval atom' was the favoured hypothesis when I began to learn about astronomy in the late 1950s and the 1960s; it was certainly mentioned in most of the books that I read. At about the same time, in 1928, Sir Arthur Eddington pointed out Chapter IV of 'The Nature of the Physical World' that the second law of thermodynamics implied that past time could not be infinite, or, in other words that the age of the universe was finite.The famous paper by George Gamow that showed that the cosmic helium/hydrogen ratio could be explained if the Universe had expanded from a hot dense initial state was published in April 1948, and Fred Hoyle called this hypothesis the 'Big Bang' in 1950. Hoyle attacked Gamow's theory in his book 'Frontiers of Astronomy' (published 1955). There was a book by Gamow about Big Bang theory in my school library during the 1960s.It is clear that astronomers understood long before 1959 that the age of the universe could not be infinite without some drastic revision of physics, and so it seems strange that most of the American scientists in this survey still believed that the universe was eternal. Lemaitre was Belgian, Gamow was Russian by birth, and Eddington and Hoyle were British, so perhaps American scientists were unaware of their work, but it still seems strange. Who were these scientists? How many of them were there? Were any of them astronomers? Where was this survey published?

(169)
Anonymous,
August 2, 2014 6:32 PM

sorry to say this but....

However compelling a case he makes for reconciling the Biblical account with science there is still this problem: after the flood the Torah explicitly states that Noah and his family were the only survivors. Therefore, all of present day humanity is descended from them. However genetic science shows that it would have taken far longer than 4 or 5 thousand years for our family tree to get back to that choke point.
His argument is that before the creation of man time had a different scale, but aferwards it had the same or similar scale it has today. I would appreciate yor reaction and or answer to the above.

Anonymous,
August 3, 2014 12:19 AM

"Genetic Science" do not "show" anything

It is a popular myth that "Genetics" shows anything about the length it would take to generate "common ancestry". They do not have a clue what the process is and how long it takes. This is an extract presented by Dr Doolittle (thats his real name!) http://www.icb.ufmg.br/labs/lbem/aulas/grad/evol/treeoflife-complexcells.pdf the tree of life is very complex - they just don't have a clue. Biologists easily make guesses and extrapolations about the past, without rigorous scientific evidence or mathematical formulae to predict it. One should be careful when one reads articles in any medium. Read: Yoram Boacz's "Genesis and Genes" published by Feldheim for clarity on this point.

(168)
AWasExcited,
April 19, 2014 5:56 PM

Read Rabbi Critiques First!

Read Critiques Please!

Unfortunately, I saw Dr. Schroeder's articles and got very excited, but you should read the reviews by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb and Yoram Bogacz of Genesis and the Big Bang before you get too excited :( Many of his arguments don't hold up in Torah interpretation, Sources, Physics and Evolution.

I post this comment because I got very excited by this article only to be disappointed when it was picked apart by other Jewish scholars. It's not all wrong, but be skeptical of this rationalist argument. There are other, sounder, proofs of the Torah.

Tim Griffioen,
November 1, 2014 12:41 AM

I enjoyed this article. Although one can technically say that the earth was created in 6 days, it does not support what some theologians assert - that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. It still supports an 'old earth' creation. I am quite convinced that the earth had rotated on its axis more than 6 full revolutions before Adam was created. It does give an explanation for the use of the word "day". The word "day" is used elsewhere in the Torah where it also did not refer to a literal 24 hour period.

(167)
Jerry,
March 13, 2014 10:08 PM

Direct reference to the million million ratio?

Thank you for the article. I would appreciate if someone gave me a direct reference to a textbook or an online source that talks about the ratio between time now and time at the bing bang (million million). Since Dr. Schroeder says it is a widely accepted fact, but I wasn't able to find it.

m,
March 31, 2014 12:15 AM

i'd like the same thing

Dr Shroeder, I am looking for the same reference to the 10^12 time ratio. If you can provide it, I may eat my hat.

(166)
Pat mercer Hutchens,
February 23, 2014 5:07 PM

God is eternal

Beresheet means "with and in His His Eternal Mind, Brain) the Eternal One created the potentiality of all from A to Z that could or would or ever was created or that even had the potential to be created. There is no such thing as stages in The Eternal's brain.
What we call yesterday, today and tomorrow are all present tensi with God, the Great I AM.

(165)
David,
February 19, 2014 12:32 PM

How does the order of creation in Genesis match the "order" in Science

I understand from Dr. Schroeder's other works that the Biblical account of Days 1-7, essentially matches the scientific theoretical progression (erev-chaos to boker-order) and that progression culminates with the creation of man. It seems to me (based on my limited understanding) that this order breaks down in Days 2 - 5, (D2: the earth, D3: the oceans and the plants all appear BEFORE D4: the sun, stars and moon, then D5: sea and bird life. D6: land life and mankind). How do we /are we able to reconcile/understand this order when compared to the fossil record and the scientific theory of directed big bang creation - initial singularity - light/matter separation - stars/galaxies generate complex atomic structures - generate planets, etc. - then the planet (Earth) is the big bang directed result that is ready for life. NOT questioning the durations/logic/math behind the 15G years, but curious as to how to reconcile the differing order of the Biblical account vs. scientific theory. Seems that D4 should be D2, and D2-D3 shifted by 1 day. Please respond to my email address.

Theodor Rebarber,
February 20, 2014 7:16 PM

Schroeder's response to David's question about the sun, stars, moon

David,Schroeder has a response to your question about the sun in one of his videos on YouTube, I believe the 48 minute one entitled "Dr Schroeder 6 days of Creation", published on July 24, 2013. If I remember it correctly, he says science indicates the sun was not visible from Earth for a long time due to extensive cloud cover, while the later dissipation of that cloud cover coincides with the Genesis time line; he argues that this is consistent with a close reading of the text. He acknowledges that this interpretation is not straightforward and involves some uncertainty.

(164)
opulence,
February 9, 2014 10:24 AM

Even more questions

I agree with Schroeder when he says each day of the Six Days represent a certain geological age. But I find it difficult to understand is that where do we go with the accuracy of any findings if we are to obtain any in every piece of information gathered?

(163)
Travis,
February 8, 2014 8:51 PM

The days would grow longer, not shorter!

On further thought, I realize that this proposal is really untenable. According to the proposed time dilation theory, each day should be exponentially longer than the last. Based on some rough calculations, I estimate that the first five "days" should have ended around 50 to 100 million after the beginning and the sixth day would have lasted the remaining billions of years. Since this does not fit at all with cosmic and Earth history as proposed by mainstream secular scientists, no help can be found year in reconciling Genesis 1 with a 15 billion year age of the universe.

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 7:28 PM

Re Travis: days longer or shorter

Why do you think it would be the later days that would be longer? The perception of the length of each day is based on the amount of stretching of space during that day. As perceived from Earth, the first day is the FARTHEST away in both space and time, allowing the most time for stretching. (As perceived from the point of creation, all 6 days are exactly equal, of course.)

(162)
Travis,
February 8, 2014 8:30 AM

Interesting, but there are still many questions

This was a very interesting article. I would be interested in what Dr. Schroeder's thoughts are on whether the geologic and fossil record we have is mostly representative of Earth history in the last two days of creation (some 750 million years in his model) or rather of the global flood recorded in Genesis. One problem I see with the time line presented is that secular Earth historians do not suppose that fruit trees existed 2 or 1.75 billion years ago. Also, I wonder about God saying that everything was "very good" on the sixth day when this probably would have been blessing millions of years of animal suffering, disease, and death.

(161)
Lawrence,
January 29, 2014 4:25 PM

Interesting

Thought provoking to say the least.Mankind only started to use time or maths, until that came along mankind never calculated anything, only to do good or evil or wrong.I am fixed on believing the Creator is in control of all that exists and that the time factor is the unfolding of events of the Creation. PTL.

Lawrence,
February 1, 2014 3:14 PM

No time

As no one is making any comments or replies I will qualify my own comment. There is no such thing, element, form whatever as time. It is merely stating an agreed sum of what we call time to a nunber. In other words I could say by the time or when I finish typing this comment out, a blade of grass in the garden grows 1,000th of a mm. It's just a measurement to work by. the grass hasn't grown by time it's grown by it's own changing of the events in the growing process. The Creator is the Creation and is in all however large all that exists is. If we don't know the Creator..then the Creatos is working from outside the box. Know that there is no such thing as time..and this truth will set you free. One more point, if time began on Day One, how can the time of expansion and how long it took be known? apparently time began after the Creation, yes..no..We exist in the extention of the creator's existense..no time to changing forms. Things around us change because we make them do so..by the events or things that we do, not by time, so is the universe, that changes when the events for change arise not by time.

(160)
Akarta,
December 16, 2013 3:14 PM

Every time the universe double, the perception of time is cut in half??

I think that the periodical sequences of six days creation have led us to a controversy within the statement: "When the universe is small, the universe doubles twice rapidly." So, how can it be that our perception of time is cut in half for every time the universe double ?

(159)
zeekthegeek,
December 10, 2013 1:02 PM

This makes me happy.

I'm 21 years old, and I didn't have the math and data to form a true conclusion. But early on, I sort of guessed, sort of knew.. that somewhere, science and the bible hold each other up. I always believed in a divine creator. I never questioned reasonable science. I never wanted to involve myself in the debates about God vs Science because I knew given enough time.. we'd finally have a little more knowledge to piece more together. And here it is :)
Nothing is for certain, our facts will continue to change as more knowledge paves way to even more knowledge.. but I am convinced that slowly the great truth of everything will eventually be revealed.

yoni the yogi,
January 1, 2014 5:36 PM

Rambam: Torah=science

You guessed right, the RAMBAM ztz"l, said that there isn't contradiction between Torah and science. And if someone sees one, it means that the person doesn't have Torah or science. Science explains the how, Torah teaches us the why.

(158)
Ruth,
December 8, 2013 2:21 AM

Given the calculations, is the 7th day 125 million years duration - is God still resting?

If the dinosaurs, along with all the animals & Adam & Eve, were created during the 6th day - a period of duration of 250 million years (one-quarter of a billion years), then God rested on the 7th day - exponetially (correct me if my understanding of this is wrong) 125 million years - so is God still resting during this 7th day period, as Adam was only 800 years old when he died, and we have only progressed almost 6,000 years since creation. So Adam must have been created at the end of the end of the 250 million year period of the 6th day, but if human concept of time starts with the creation of Adam, what is the actual duration of the 7th day, given the exponetial calculations, or does the 7th day not follow this same concept, as there is no mention of 'evening & morning' on the 7th day? Because if God rested on the 7th day (for a period of 125 million years) then He is still resting? There is probably a very simple explanation, but I would like to understand this. I know we will never understand everything, as God does, but I still wonder about this 7th day.

Z Katz,
December 28, 2013 6:46 AM

The 7th day time is endless. Everything related to creation was completed and the "resting" of God is eternal as our belief in Him should be

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 7:34 PM

Re Ruth: Length of the 7th day

Schroeder's view is that, since the Torah's calendar switched to being Earth-based after G-d created Adam's neshema, we would perceive the length of the 7th day as the same as any one of our other days.

(157)
Richard,
December 2, 2013 6:45 AM

The CREATION will never be understood until the blueprint of the creation is finally understoon, and I don't believe that this is it.

The Creation is only understood when the blueprint of the creation is found. And the blueprint of creation can only be understood when the words "Day, Eveniong & Morning are properly understood within the CONTEXT of the creation. Hebrew must be the language of reference.

(156)
Paul,
November 13, 2013 2:25 AM

We could just as the Creator

The Creator knows the truth and we are only able to understand a small portion of it, at the end of eternity we will understand all of it. love you little one.

(155)
Anonymous,
November 4, 2013 11:49 PM

Impossible

The salinity levels of the ocean, regardless of how the first six days would appear, would be so high that life would not be supportable. Also, the theory of theistic evolution is so outside of science and religion that both sides view it as irrelevant. "Yom", the word used for day in Genesis 1, means a literal 24 hour period. It is bad exegetical practice to principalize a text before discerning its true meaning. This is true of any book, not just the Bible. With an understanding that "day" is 24 hours, and that "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" is merely a reference to God's being eternal, we could only logically come to the conclusion that creation happened just as the Bible says it happened: in 6 literal days. Biological impossibilities of millions of years between days aside, it is simply bad translation to read between the lines where no discernible evidence is given.

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 7:39 PM

Re Anonymous: Impossible

You are not understanding Schroeder. He IS saying that the creation took literally 6, 24-hour days, just as it is written in Torah, from the perspective of creation; however, those days are perceived as billions of years from our perspective. His entire point is about the PERCEPTION of time based on distance from creation, which is a principle well-established in science.

(154)
Oded,
October 3, 2013 10:15 AM

The Dr. is awesome.

Awesome. I think I must share this with my friends.

(153)
Grace Yow,
September 6, 2013 2:48 PM

plants third day, sun fourth day

i commend you, dr. schroeder for your work. may the lord continue to bless your service for him. i have two questions:

1. how did the plants survive the billion years there was no sunlight?

2. though the principles of rate of expansion of the universe can be applied correctly to existing universe, could this not be not applicable to its creation. the plants, animals and adam and eve were created mature, could the universe not have been created mature as well?

(152)
jay,
August 3, 2013 3:14 AM

Wow

I am completely in awe and even a bit apprehensive at the explanation but no more in awe then knowing that G-d exists.

(151)
Johan van Rooy,
July 4, 2013 1:17 PM

Does the theory inherit some of the Genesis flaws though?

As I already commented, this seems like a very good explanation as to how the 6-day creation can be explained in terms of the scientific evidence for a multi-billion year long process. That being said, it does not offer solutions for some of the other flaws in the Genesis account of creation. Firstly, Genesis refers to a young, empty earth being created right at the outset, together with the rest of the universe, and having been present when the first light(s) started to shine. That famous picture of the young universe would suggest otherwise. Current data put the formation of our solar system approximately 9 odd billion years after the Big Bang. In terms of the author’s calculations it would only be a day later, but still. Secondly, the sequence of day 3 and day 4 is contentious in the sense that green (photosynthesising) plants would not have been possible without a sun being present, while day 4 on its own (creation of the sun, the moon and the stars some time after the earth was created) has its own unique problems. These shortcomings would, by virtue of this theory, be amplified in that the time gaps between these events would have now become much longer. For example, this theory implies that the green plants would have taken 2 billion years to come into existence, but had to do that without any sun being present..?

Vlad Seder,
August 6, 2013 3:54 AM

flaws in the Genesis account of creation

flaws in the Genesis account of creation? Are we postulating here that somehow The Creator gave us a "flawed" account of His "flawed" Creation, and now it takes somehow His somewhat "flawless" creatures to correct His "flawed" account? Amazing!

Puck,
September 5, 2013 5:29 AM

No need for sarcasm

Rather than responding glibly, it might be worthwhile to actually address the flaws that Johan points out. The maths in the article above are very good, but you can't handwave details. If you suggest that the Torah makes falsifiable claims about the Universe and then proceed to defend those claims, you'd better be prepared to defend them in their details as well as on the macro level.

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 7:43 PM

Re Puck and Johan's question

Schroeder attempts to answer your questions about the timing of the sun's creation, photosynthesis, etc., in his 48 minute YouTube video "Dr Schroeder on the 6 days of creation". (Note you have to find the right video; he has others that don't address this issue.) Or, better yet, check out his website, which has more detailed written material. Note, Schroeder does acknowledge that his response to these issues involves greater uncertainty than the overall timeline.

(150)
Johan van Rooy,
July 4, 2013 11:57 AM

Extremely compelling article, but...

I'll have to take the word of the author for the relevant time variations in an expanding universe referred to in the article (although I raise a specific question about it below). If that is fact, this must be one of the most convincing arguments and -scientific explanations yet for the hotly debated 6 day creation. Its opens up a peculiar question as to whether theistic evolution, evolutionary creation or progressive creationism is at play here, but i.t.o. the hypothesis, it is hardly relevant. The reference to energy not having time constraints, whilst embodied energy (matter) being subjected to time is of particular interest giving a personal hypothesis that our soul/conscience may essentially be energy temporarily embodied in (tied to) our earthly bodies, after which it will return to its energy form and be timeless (immortal). I have two reservations about Dr. Schroeder's idea. Firstly, the actual age of the universe has been confirmed recently by PLANCK as being 13.82 billion years; could the variance between his calculated time frame and the confirmed age possible be as a result of the inflation period which occurred soon after the Big Bang? Secondly, it does not answer the question as to whether creation may still be ongoing, but OK, I suppose that the last-mentioned topic would be a theological challenge rather than a scientific one.

(149)
sid,
June 30, 2013 1:10 AM

genesis verse 1 & 2

I agree earth is billions of years old but I also believe that six days is six days. what is hidden or missed is the pause between verse one and two. in the beginning.... whenever that was.... then the earth was without form and void.... it was here. span of time countless only God knows. time of creation "true beginning and fall of Lucifer" to time when God decided to form Adam. six days is six days. you get the billion years between verses 1 & 2. my opinion

(148)
Roger M. Pearlman CTA,
March 19, 2013 4:29 PM

Facts,Valid science more consistent w' The Recent Complex Creation'

'The recent complex creation' framework to understand science in full context, is more consistent w/ the facts and valid science then the big lie of MToE and deep time myth.See the next edition of the recent complex creation on light years to distant stars, metric expansion, inflation theory..see Jack Hanoka PHD on radiiometric dating in the B'or Hatora science journal.once the science catches up it will be known each of the first 6 days of the physical universe approximated the length of a day today.Happy Pessach to all,

8 Nissan, 5773

(147)
Darrell,
February 7, 2013 7:41 PM

Science or Scientists?

Much of time writers say science tells us this, when they actually mean scientists tell us this.
Every claim of scientists that the universe is billions of years old is based on assumptions that they can't proven and a wrong interpretation of the evidence available. There are other very scientific conclusions that can' be drawn from the same evidence. There is a good explanation why the sun was not needed during the first several days to have night and day.
The light until the sun was created was from the residual energy from the initial creation.
The Bible also explains how there can be light from very distance stars that were only created a few thousand years ago. The Bible tells us that God "stretched out the heavens"> If He did that in a day, we would still be seeing the light from those stars that are now far away.
I suggest a couple of very good websites that focus on the actual scientific evidence for a young earth.
http://youngearth.com/
and
http://kgov.com/real-science-radio

(146)
Michael Thompson,
January 22, 2013 1:38 AM

Big Bang and Evolution theories contradict evidence

Firstly the Big Bang: If first there was nothing, then it started spinning, and then exploded, then everything should be spinning the same way. Even Venus spins the wrong way, and Uranus spins on its side. The whole Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us - this CANNOT happen in an explosion. Also, the existence of comets today shows that the universe is not billions of years old (Van Oorts cloud is a wonderful fairy tale made up by people whose first assumption is that God does not exist).
Now evolution. I have a photo of a fossil where a dinosaur has stepped on a human footprint - so they were alive at the same time! Lots of other evidence of this at www.bible.ca
No intermediate fossils ever found, incredible complexity of a 'simple' cell, all point to a designer, who didn't use evolution.
And as for the geological column - haha, big joke. It can only be believed in if you ignore the majority of observations, because it's different almost wherever you look.
But of course, scientists who wish to believe that God doesn't exist, can't allow themselves to look at the rest of the evidence, and vilify anyone in their midst who starts to.
For more information, google young earth, young universe, creation science, intelligent design.
My God says what He means and means what He says! (Chuck Missler)
Shalom!

(145)
M. ramirez,
December 20, 2012 9:04 PM

Science still a "theory"

The scientific/geological theory of the earth being 16 billion years old still poses a problem for the Genesis Creation account. The scientific account incorporates the "evolution period" of life-devlopment with no Divine help. The Biblical account addresses God's personal and supernatural involvement that can occur in the instance of being spoken into existence. I believe the genesis account.

Darrell,
February 7, 2013 7:47 PM

Science is not a theory, but scientists theorize.

Science is what is. Theory is what the scientists think the science is but they can't prove.
Science doesn't change. Scientists change their minds constantly.
The problem comes when scientists state their opinions as fact... then the media and science teachers report them as fact.

(144)
Anonymous,
November 14, 2012 6:34 PM

I have read your article, and wonder about next question.
Since the first trip to the moon NASA possesses material (moon rocks).
The Bible says that the earth was created on the first day, and the sun and moon on the fourth day.
By analising those rocks, the age of the moon should be known.
With this information it should be possible to date the age of universe.
Is science not intrested to do so?
I will share your article with friends and family for discussion. Thank you!

(143)
Jon,
October 15, 2012 6:38 PM

Don't be scared

What we know of the universe today was different 100 years ago just as 100 years from now which will make this article moot when the age of the universe changes again. The Torah is eternal, don't be afraid to believe that 6 days means 6 days.

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 7:47 PM

Re Jon: Don't be scared

Schroeder is saying that 6 days means exactly that, 6 24-hour days, just from the perspective of creation. His point is that this is (correctly) perceived as billions of years from the perspective of Earth. He is saying they are both entirely true.

(142)
S kliegl,
September 21, 2012 9:58 PM

Wow!!!

Trying to do a crossword puzzle I stumble upon your article and couldn't stop reading and saying, "wow!". I'm just an uneducated woman who didn't know how much she loved science! If only i had this information 35 yrs ago when i had to debate "the genesis story vs evolution" (i was put on the Genesis side)! I think i could have won my debate! I will share your article with many friends and family for discussion. Thank you!

(141)
David,
August 6, 2012 3:18 AM

Reference Info

I trying to locate the Scientific American article where Dr Schroeder got the survey he talked about in his article, as follows: "The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American ― the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning"
Thank you,
david

(140)
P Andersen,
July 18, 2012 5:47 PM

Just an uneducated opinion

I'm just a housewife from rural NY. I have always felt that God's time is different than ours. Who's to say that the 6 days are only 144 hours? It would be arrogant to assume God has revealed all his secrets. I like things just the way they are. I'm happy to have God at the helm. Science is simply information God is revealing to us as we are capable of grasping it. Some ancient civilizations were given a peek at God's mysteries and it did them no good. We are hopefully more evolved intellectually than the Summarians and the Mayans. God reveals His mysteries when we are ready to receive. I love science because it affirms God's presence in our world every day. For every thing we know there are a million things we don't know. God parcels out information as we are ready. When we are truly prepared we will know much more. But, hopefully, not everything. I like God in charge. I've seen the boss's job and He can have it.

(139)
Michael Freedman,
July 3, 2012 11:02 PM

Hang On....

The 15-20 billion year number comes not from the cosmic microwave background (google it), but rather predominantly from measurements of nearby and distant galaxies, particularly their rates of expansion away from us. We find that the distance to a galaxy is proportional to its recessional velocity. The constant of proportionality is the Hubble Constant, H, which turns out to be (approximately) the reciprocal of the age of the universe. So we measure the age by measuring recessional velocities. T = 1/H is only true, however, if the universe is not significantly accelerating or decelerating its expansion rate. If the rate of expansion is rapidly accelerating, the universe may be older than 1/H = 15 billion years, give or take. Such an acceleration would be caused by a large value of the Cosmological Constant, a sort of anti-gravity force predicted by General Relativity. There is some evidence that this might be the case.
So finally, yes, the age of the universe, being based on the empirical determination of H, is based on the observed evidence.
The age of the Solar System (including the Earth), on the other hand, is measured by the radioactive decay of certain isotopes in rocks and meteorites. These isotopes (principally Potassium and Uranium) were created with the solar system. By measuring how much has decayed, we can very accurately determine how long it's been since they (and the rest of the solar system) were formed.

Chava,
August 26, 2012 7:43 PM

In regards to the radioactive decay of uranium

You may be interested to know that a Dr. David Gentry made a discovery about the radioactive decay of uranium and how isotopes along its decay chain have been preserved in granite all over the world. His findings were published in many established scientific journals in the 1970's/80's and to this day have yet to be disputed. There is a very interesting video you can watch on YouTube in which Dr Gentry explains his findings. It's called "fingerprints of creation"
All the best!

(138)
Daniel Franks,
July 3, 2012 9:00 AM

Dynamic data for static models

Intriguing. Though one would hope for proofs based on fewer assumptions. It is nice that someone is arguing for the model of a static universe, but is it really easier to assume that time and space have undergone a completely synchronised proportionate expansion, in the face of real world data indicating the changing dynamism inherent in all the spaces and objects of the universe. ... Let me put it this way: If indeed the days (strictly speaking of them as rotations of the earth on its axis) of the early earth were truly of 24 hour length, relative to their relative time, then why do the seasonal chronologies of geologic strata of earlier epochs seem to indicate much longer periods of relative time and drastically different seasonal phenomena (google 'chronology by varve count') ? Or even more perplexing, why did no one inform the dinosaurs and other prehistoric life forms that they were only experiencing but a few days of relative time, as they seem to have taken the opportunities of the timeframe under discussion to indulge in many thousands of generations of evolutionary change, as evidenced by their fossils? Kind regards.

D. Arnold,
July 11, 2012 2:35 AM

Dinosaurs' perspective

If my understanding of Dr. Schroeder's book is correct, I think you have it backwards. The dinosaurs were experiencing "thousand of generations," which is a "few days" from the Torah's perspective in Genesis. It is hard to conceptualize, but makes sense in terms of relativity.

Gabe,
September 7, 2012 3:42 PM

Synchronicity

I do not think that the expansion is synchronized nor proportionate. I saw a documatery that alleged the universe expanded in an irregular form which led this scientist to believe in another hypothesis which is the plurality of universes or pluriverses.

(137)
Anonymous,
April 29, 2012 11:39 PM

David I have also looked into the relationship between the Sumerian civilization and jewish heritage...
Dr. Schroeder what are your thoughts on the Sumerian account of genesis and the flood?

(136)
Anonymous,
April 28, 2012 1:08 AM

flood

According to bible genology from adam to the flood 1656 yrs or .2350 B. C Start from Adam and go forward in bible Genology

(135)
Incredible,
April 11, 2012 11:03 PM

Beginning of Time

I found this to be so interesting, enjoyable, and informative! Thank you very much.

(134)
Justin,
April 10, 2012 6:41 AM

Awesome

I really enjoyed this article.
Thank you for taking the time to write it.

(133)
George,
March 5, 2012 1:18 PM

Age of Universe looking back in time or looking from beginning

Most excellent article, put an insight onto questions I had for years: but, now what do you do with all the scientific data in the Museums that tells us dating of life that has fossilized?

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 7:53 PM

Re George: Age of Universe

Schroeder's argument is that the scientific data in the Museums and the Genesis are both entirely correct and compatible with each other, when you account for his point that Torah's 6 days are from the location coordinates of the initial creation/Big Bang while everything on Earth was experiencing time from our location coordinates. It's not about relativity either, it's about the perception of time being different because of the stretching of space. Take another look at his article, or his website where he discusses this in greater depth.

(132)
David DuBois,
March 4, 2012 12:11 AM

Noah flood evidence? Sumerian King list great ages?

I loved the article and bought the book. There are a bunch of remaining puzzles I am looking into, and wonder if you know of any leads to help me. Like if the Great flood was really in the 2000-4000 BC time period, where is the evidence? And while I can conceive of 900 year life spans, what about the life spans from the Sumerian King list -- are those Nephilim, or is some relativity involved?

(131)
Eli Schwartz,
March 2, 2012 7:32 PM

Finally, a reason

At last there is an actual reason why science gets different results from the Torah. The explanation "oh, the flood messed up the dating methods" has always driven me crazy, because it's basically saying no, science is always wrong, when the only reason to say so is faith. That doesn't prove anything, and as we know, Hashem uses the rules He already set up as much as possible.

(130)
bert r wren,
February 26, 2012 4:57 AM

Bible version

May I ask, what version of the bible are you using to quote Day One vs. first day?
Thank you for your reply.
Bert R. Wrem

(129)
Windy Hill T,
February 19, 2012 3:08 AM

This explains a lot!

I absolutely LOVE to read stuff like this.

(128)
Dr. Sam DeLoach,
February 4, 2012 1:25 PM

I, too had come to this conclusion.

Having a doctorate from a very conservative seminary and being an ordained minister, my knowledge of science led me to this conclusion after much inner conflict. I beleive God used genetic mutations to have Adam, with the ability to reason sufficiently, arise. The Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 (sons of God) were the pre- Adamic man. The Genetic mutation of Adam was precious (therefore a Garden [Edan]) was created for him and a clone with this mutation was taken from Adam (his rib). Strange how archelogists say civilization arose suddenly, due to agriculture and domestication of animals, around the same time Genesis 2:5 say there was no one to tend the ground. Genetics was why Jewish people were forbidden to intermarry with the surrounding people, yet they were dispersed worldwide; taking their percious seed with them. The hand of God was spreading this seed like a farmer does his. While working on a book dealing with this subject, research lead me to this site which was the final piece to my puzzle. It will use some of this materil if that is OK. Your name and the title of the book will be included. Thanks.

Jim Evanoff,
February 13, 2012 12:44 PM

I am an engineer and if you looked at the circuits I have designed over my career you would see those things that worked incorporated into each design where they fit. You could even make an argument my circuits evolved as I made more comples designs. It seems reasonable to me that God would use the same basic genetic design for 2 eyes or 2 arms etc in his designs and some would say one evolved from the other, When in fact we both had the same designer.

(127)
Olutayo Agunbiade,
January 27, 2012 8:56 AM

It is amazingly fascinating to see the Bible giving meaning to the work of science... what a wise God and what great work He has made called the mind especially the likes of this author; Dr. Gerald Schroeder

(126)
Anonymous,
January 11, 2012 1:45 AM

Age of universe

The age of the universe is not 15 3/4 billion years, its under 14 billion, there goes all that Math of adding up the days...

andy,
February 5, 2012 7:44 AM

Give or take 10% and to 2 SF . Its 14 billion.

Hey - look buddy -anyone who can logically turn 6 daysi n to 15 billion years deserves our attention. Also - all general theories will be refined in the future. As humans our intellect allows us only to approximate, we are never 100%. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is up for grabs seeing as we can detect particles that move faster than light.

will,
February 7, 2012 5:47 PM

Its an educated guess between 13-17 billion. Its not 14 billion exactly. You should do a little more studying

Adam,
February 9, 2012 3:49 AM

Its all conjecture

Take a look at the author's book "The Science of God". (Specifically, Appendix B). In it, he discusses how cosmologists "calculate" the age of the universe. It is premised upon a whole bunch of assumptions, and is inherently not accurate. it is a guess, a conjecture.
Here's a brief overview of what I took away. We can "measure" the universe (and thus extrapolate its age) out to about 100 million light years. If you draw a 1 inch circle, this represents the area of the universe we can chart, and only a couple points at that. The actual size of the universe would be a 14 foot circle around that. There's definitely room for error. 14, 15.75, 20. Its all fairly close within the margin of error.

Alen Kalati,
April 20, 2013 10:51 PM

IT does match

Consider the following: If the entire creation would have taken only one tenth of a day, it would still be considered 'day one'. so 13.7 years which translate to 5.0005 days (13.7 billion devided to one trillion times 365) would still mean the begining of the sixth day.

(125)
dave paul,
January 5, 2012 12:22 PM

"There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time. Really ? I thought that Sabbath starts from the (Friday)evening, through the Saturday morning to the Saturday evening. Now that, too, is a bizarre way of describing the period of time of a day. Yet we do it every week as normal..... ? Something odd with this reasoning.

(124)
abraham,
December 1, 2011 10:50 PM

compelling argument

shalom
compelling argument but apologetic;
new chronology suggests the current universe is not older than 10,000 years.
it does not preclude other forms of existence and/or previous entities before this time frame, as hinted by midrash and kabala.
the almighty played with his creations and discarded most of them them like an artist discards drafts or experiments, before finally deciding on the final creation-version from adam and eve, nearly 6000 years ago.
'scientific' age-dating methods of the universe are largely hypothetical and grossly inaccurate.
best wishes

(123)
Hesadrian,
October 17, 2011 3:02 PM

need calcules

You are great,
but it is too simple, you need to add some calculus like differential in changes each day even more to each second.
and if you see in the theory that every second took longer than the previous, so it should be every day is longer than the next, not just a mere simple of divider by 2.
Please to correct the calculation again, and im pretty sure it will match all the archeological finding and modern science about the creation of the earth.
note: send me an email should you have include the calculus into the calculation.
Thanks

(122)
tom,
October 10, 2011 3:53 PM

Missed the meaning - perhaps?

"In the beginning" is a statement that indicates a starting point. But, the world was already existing - disorderly, confused, dark, and covered with water. How could this be? There is not the slightest darkness in G-d, nor is what G-d creates without form. To consider that G-d would be act in such a way is totally against the nature and character of the eternal. What "the beginning" does state is that something catastrophic took place. That what G-d created erets hayah tohuw bohuw - that is the earth hayah (translated better as "became") without form, void. Some event plunged the universe into disorder and darkness, and that G-d took that which was previously existing and called for it to remerge, again, the literal translation of the Hebrew creative acts bears this as true. The exception is the forming of man(kind). In which a different rendering of words are used to indicate that this creative work was something completely different and did not exist in the past. The question one asks is what destroyed the cosmos? Only one thing and being destroys - evil - the nachash.

(121)
Obey Tapera,
September 17, 2011 6:07 AM

I'm impressed by th close analysis of th age of th universe and it has also made me realise that not only ar we existing in a disorderly manner but in very wel God-defined orderly fashion; whilst th bible has all th answers 2 our questions.
I'm impressed to a point beyond my comprehension. I'm impressed by th close analysis of th age of th universe and it has also made me realise that not only ar we existing in a disorderly manner but in very wel God-defined orderly fashion; whilst th bible has all th answers 2 our questions.
I'm impressed to a point beyond my comprehension.

(120)
Anonymous,
September 10, 2011 11:17 PM

WOW! AMAZING! I LOVE IT! G-D BLESS YOU. THANK YOU

(119)
joel chasid,
September 3, 2011 8:20 PM

what can i say, wow !

thank you. i'm an older man, didn't go far in school.but you've made this relatively easy for the layman

(118)
Dave,
August 11, 2011 7:27 AM

For this to work, God would have to be a physical entity sitting on the lip of a gravitational well, at the bottom of which is our universe. Not only are these figures contrived, correlating the events on the various 'days' with what science says about those things, doesn't send shivers up my spine. Day Three, for instance, is when fruit bearing trees are said to be created. According to the article, this was 2 billion years ago. According to science, there were only simple bacterial 2 billion years ago - fruit bearing trees only evolved at most 140 million years ago.
Something of a discrepancy, no?

Kelly,
September 5, 2011 12:58 PM

Isn't that the point?

I am by no means a scientist but isn't the point this is trying to make that time works differently (or passes differently) from the beginning point than from where we are? That would make things from Day 3 seem older to us than from God created them-right? Are you using the million million calculation for this?

(117)
serge,
June 26, 2011 2:13 PM

mass and time

another book I read a few years ago by a famous scientist had a similar but simpler explanation :time is slower when mass is greater ;a planet with 1triliion time Earth gravity would have time a trillion time slower; the dot at time had a humongus mass and therefore 1 day at this time represents millions of year of our time

Matt,
June 28, 2011 4:17 AM

Don't forget one thing! " the mass in universe is constant" mass is simply transformed only, like Sun is transform hydrogen into helium ...

(116)
Brucestifer,
June 19, 2011 2:52 AM

Life of Adam

That's all very complicated and yet doesn't explain dinosaurs. Here on earth from my perspective 5700 years passed by and out there somewhere 15B yrs passed by. Dinosaurs still had to exist in my 5700 yrs.
How long was Adam in the garden before Eve? How long were both in the garden? Did they age? I say aging didn't come till sin. There 130 yrs. before children was counted after sin.
Adam and Eve might have been in the garden for billions of evenings and mornings.
The second law of thermodynamics is the important thing. Someone had to create the universe.

Eli Schwartz,
March 2, 2012 7:08 PM

All Backwards

The 15 billion years are what the Torah says is 6 days. Then the 5700 years comes after, which the Torah agrees with science about. The dinosaurs happened far before Adam and Eve, who were created 5700 years ago, and with their creation, we switch to earth time.. They then lived 930 years or so, and of course they aged, the sin was on the first day of their life. Now back to the dinosaurs. They existed during one of the previous Days of Creation. They died during that day. All in universal time (Hashem's perspective of time viewing the universe as a whole). In Earth time, that was the scientists' calculations of millions of years ago. The only period of time that Hashem views the same way as the scientists is the last 5700 years since Adam and Eve.

(115)
The Great Ferret,
June 6, 2011 3:34 PM

Huh?

If god created the earth why would he do so from the edge of the universe? Also if he is omnipresent then surely he is everywhere and hence six days is six days. The Great Ferret does not approve

Phil,
June 13, 2011 8:09 AM

Phil doesn't approve of the Great Ferret's questions

On question 1: What do you mean "from the edge of the universe"? Did Dr. Schroeder say something about any edge? From what point would you tell God to create the earth?
On question 2: Why do you think the words following the "hence" is really a logical extension of what comes before the "hence"?
And to Josh: Why do you think there was only one Hebrew script in ancient days?

(114)
Matus,
May 18, 2011 3:07 PM

Did I miss something?

Did I miss something? Actually I'm confused , cause if the farthest edge of known universe is around 13.7 bil. light years away in all directions, then whole known universe is 27.4 bil. light years big, (or old), but it was already that size 27.4 bil. years ago, so if it's expending in the lift speed (that's what the scientists saying) , then it must be at least 54.8 bil. years old!!!
Please explain it to me, somebody.

Anonymous,
October 1, 2011 11:36 AM

Expansion of time/space

My understanding is that our observable universe is about 40 billion light years across. However, the big bang and hyperinflation seem to have happened less than 14 billion years ago. This means that timespace itself has been expanding faster than the speed of light. Data also shows that this expansion is speeding up and that the further away from us an object is, the faster it is moving away from us. We do not yet know why timespace is expanding, but many suspect dark energy and dark matter to be involved.

(113)
Josh,
May 16, 2011 10:57 PM

Not only Beit.

If you are referring to the modern Hebrew Alphabeth then "Kaf" כ
is more accurate to your explanation, but as we know the Tora is very old and if it is old then the early Hebrew alphabeth was completely different, actually there is no symbol like Beith of Kaf AT ALL !!!!!!

(112)
alexander sperlescu,
May 11, 2011 10:21 PM

From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept.

Using your staetmen t"From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept."origin of man is much earlier than stated and counted by jewish calendarTry to explain the genetics (science) of the Holy Book

Anonymous,
March 2, 2012 7:19 PM

Thinking Man

Adam was the first human, the first man. He was the first to have a neshama, and earlier man would be from the previous, sixth day of creation, during which Adam was created according to the Torah, and scientists would express this as evolution of man. Was thinking, reasoning, speech-capable man creating civilization before Adam? No. Therefore, Schroeder's explanation of the sixth day being the time frame in which the scientists say man evolved is still perfectly valid.

(111)
Linda,
April 25, 2011 11:00 AM

Thank You

This is so awesome! I have always been at a loss to explain this to my children, who use it as an excuse to not believe. I knew it had something to do with time not being the same for us, as it is for our Father! Thank you!

(110)
ryeguy,
April 20, 2011 4:08 PM

Are different ages possible?

Excellent read! I've read it a couple times and I'm still wrapping my mind around it. Just a couple comments and a question:
First, at the forefront you say "The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old."
With the depth of knowledge reflected in the rest of the article I'm surprised to find no reference to the obvious source of these globally-correlated sedimentary fossils: a global flood. To say the Earth was created with these fossils in the ground instead of laid down under massive amounts of rising water later on sounds ignorant of the Genesis narrative.
Second, in terms of defining the start of the hebrew calendar, you say "We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock." But that can't be, as Adam was created ON the 6th day, not afterward. And the syntax of the 1st through 6th days is the same, implying they are the same length, with the sun/moon/heavenly bodies being formed on Earth's 'Day 4' (or the 15 billionth year in the furthest expanse of the universe) to give us an observable 'clock' for reference so that we can tell time, though time already existed.
So the question is, if the relative time in the expanded universe correlates so perfectly to the 6 days of creation from Earth's perspective, why can't the universe be (or at least apper) to be 15 3/4 billions of years old while the Earth is literally and simultaneously only about 6,000 years old?

(109)
Anonymous,
April 14, 2011 3:59 AM

7th Day?

Hi, why is the Seventh Day not part of any calculation?
And more infor on dis and order.
Lastly why is the Passover on the 19 Apr or 16 Nis?
Thanks

Fred,
February 18, 2012 2:04 AM

What if we're in the seventh day now?

God never says "There was morning, and there was evening, day seven." Evolution goes on for infinity, there is no starting over, back to day one. What was God left to do after day seven? Maybe to manage His creation, on a hallowed day.

Anonymous,
March 2, 2012 7:24 PM

Today is the Seventh Day

I believe the 6000 years from Adam till the Redemption is the seventh day. If the first six days were the creation of the physical, and Shabbat is the day of spirituality, then as the Sages say, on the seventh day Hashem created the neshama and the spiritual aspect of reality, which will culminate in the days of the Messiah.
Passover is is the anniversary of the Exodus from Egypt, which is unrelated to Creation, at least in the context of the calendar. Of course, it is part of the Ultimate Plan, which began with Creation...

(108)
Anonymous,
April 10, 2011 12:10 PM

One thing i also forgot to mention, in universal reality "time" does not exist as "time" is a "man" made implement to explain "mans" existance.

Frank,
May 20, 2011 7:15 PM

In the Torah, God provides the cosmic "instruments" so man can tell time.

God provided the cosmic instruments so man could use them to tell time. See Genesis.

(107)
marino,
April 10, 2011 12:04 PM

even if you use the bible's 1000 years for one day and using the six days as for the creation you must also consider that every day in the year was a thousand years which will equate to 18.7 billion years and if you use a 7 day week you will get 25.5 billion years, but i guess who's counting

(106)
Steven White,
March 17, 2011 3:35 AM

Time

The oldest translations have a pause mark between the first and second verse as we know them today. This indicates that after od created everything known to exist, there was a vast amount of time not accounted for, the time of the dinosaurs. The verb translated as was in the following verses is translated as became in numerous other passages. At this point an asteroid struck the earth and it "became" lifeless and void. After untold eons had passed God then chose to recreate the world, with the introduction of man into the equation.

Shoshanah,
March 18, 2011 8:34 AM

how do you know this?

Where does it say in tradional Jewish sources about an asteroid hitting the earth? Which verb was translated to indicate this? Could you please give sources so we could look it up. By sources I mean ,
Rashi, etc. Thank you.

(105)
Shalom Issenberg,
March 7, 2011 1:01 PM

This Explains A Lot

Very cool - love the way things here got answered!

(104)
Steve Katz,
March 2, 2011 2:20 AM

Created in the moment

One moment's flash!

(103)
Anonymous,
March 1, 2011 9:42 AM

The age of the universe

I love this explanation. Fascinating.

(102)
Rich,
February 28, 2011 4:38 PM

Chris's Assertion

- When it says in day 4 that trees and plants were created "before" the sun, it could very well be meaning 'in front of' as in, appear before a judge.

(101)
TMay,
February 27, 2011 7:35 PM

?

I am not sure why he says his granddaughter travels returns it takes no time. My memory is that time speeds up on the return voyage,

(100)
Elias Ghosalkar,
February 23, 2011 12:44 PM

Torah is the Ultimate Truth

B'H
Brilliant article..but whats more amazing is the fact that our holy Rabbi's always knew these secrets. Science is a mere tool which validates the Torah truth.. for all who think otherwise this artcile and all the author's books are a real eye opener. Its time Aish publishes other articles of Dr Schroeder as well cos the world needs to know the only truth..Our Precious Torah

(99)
Chris Mitchell,
February 15, 2011 6:31 PM

Brilliant article, but the fourth day is still a problem

I read Genesis and the Big Bang a while ago, and it's fascinating - and the article suggesting that relativity is in Psalms 90 I think is spot on. However, at the end of the article, Dr. Schroeder says "Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine."
It's the sequence of events in Genesis that cause a scientific problem. Relativity or no relativity, things that happened on day three should take place before things that happen on day four, and so on. And yet Genesis says that trees and plants were created *before* the sun. That doesn't match modern scientific understanding that maintains that trees require sunlight to photosynthesise (or indeed that the sun must have existed before the earth, so we have something to orbit around!).

(98)
Wolf,
February 15, 2011 5:53 PM

Great!

Finally somebody came up with a good explanation as to match these two concepts...I love how you can explain relativity.
I'm an engineer and lover of astronomy, I have never had a doubt and always thought relativity was the answer, 6 Earth-days?..Lunar days? Saturn days? it's all relative to the point of view.
Love it!

(97)
annie johnson,
January 23, 2011 1:01 AM

eureka!

i am just your average 'joe' or 'josephine' if you like! i have always struggled to tie religion together with science,and it has been an on-going personal battle for all of my adult life,i am 41 now. i am niether athiest nor true believer. this has pained me greatly. in my heart i felt that one day science and religion would be proven to be one and the same.....but i haven't the intelligence to vocabularise what i meant. i have said to friends that something didn't sit right as regards to the bible and time scale...particularily the 6 days, and i even joked that perhaps gods 6 days were actually millions of years to our perspective!! to read this has clarified a burden and lifted a weight from my heart and mind...i thank you! although not fully converted,you have opened my eyes to god and i will continue to look for,and find, his fingerprint on this earth.

(96)
kassie,
January 20, 2011 9:55 PM

comparison to humans

after reading the part about how time is halved when expansion is doubled, a light bulb of comparison went off in my head.
when we were children, the hours seemed long and the days eternal. the older we get, the faster time seems to go. where we once said "i can't wait for christmas, why does it have to take so long to come?" we say decades later, "is it really christmas again, already?!"
which made me wonder, does the mind expand similar to the universe....

(95)
David Rossiter,
January 13, 2011 7:50 AM

age of universe

I found this article completely enthralling. thank you. I have one question. The age of the universe as calculated today has refined to 13.7billion years /- only a few million years. How does this affect this wonderful presentation? ( I am not cynical, I am hoping there is "error" enough to enable it to still be correct)

(94)
mearr,
January 8, 2011 3:55 PM

you know in the unversity of AZ

in that university they have slowed down light..just because it travels now at 186,000persecond does not mean that it always did..it actually could of traveled faster or slower

(93)
James,
January 6, 2011 7:55 PM

Fantastic commentary - I understood it with my rudimentary physics. The concept is so simple I wonder why scientist can't see it. You have given me some sound knowledge to explain to non-believers. Thank you very much and God continue to bless you.

(92)
MDURL,
January 3, 2011 7:47 AM

Impressed

It is quite satisfying to read an augment appealing to reason that would take most composers volumes to extrapolate in less than 15 min. I believe this is a gift given a man consistent with the blessings of His clockwork at a time when attention spans and educational discipline have atrophied substantially due to modern entertainment conveniences. Not to say that transmission of knowledge isn’t desired at a more intimate level, but tank you for a one carrot version of this Gem. I cant wait to read your book!

(91)
Edmundot,
December 27, 2010 8:29 PM

A simple calculation on elpased time (Supported by the Bible)

The Bible (66 books) chronology lead us to demostrate that humankind has been around 6000 years. The there are reason to believe each day was around 7000 years long). If each creation day was around 7000 years then there are 42,000 years total at Adam creation. If each year is a year of GOD, both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures agree on this fact ( Please read ... Psalms 90:4 and II Peter 3:8), then is true that you can come to a short distance of the 'elapsed time' at Adam creation:
365.25(days/year) * 42,000(six days gone) * 1000(God day lenght) = 15,340,500,000
the days we have been here since Adam creation ... ?
This should be the believe of any one who believe that there is no conflict between the Bible and science!

(90)
Richard Joachim,
December 7, 2010 1:54 AM

Happiness

Ah, Dr G, you make this old man happy; how often have Christians and Jewish 'fundamentalists come to me to seek to have their own pet 'time-scales' validated (I taught and hosted mixed classes of Christians and Jews in biblical Hebrew, languages and epigraphy for many years) and they all came away frustrated as all I'd say was that HaShem's Perspective and our human perspective are two very different animals.
Of course, there are 'scientific things' in the TaNaKH that cannot be explained from a purely 'historical' measure - how could the author of Job 26 go against all 'accepted' cosmology of his day (c1000BCE or earlier) to make the claim that the Earth "hangs on 'nothingness*' [*beleamah is a fascinating compound words that contains a question and literally reads as 'failing? What?' I could transpose into our modern concept-word 'energy'.] All Blessings and strength to you, Dr G and to our beloved Aish.

(89)
Dov,
November 29, 2010 1:59 AM

Perplexed

Although it is hard to argue with an incredible researcher like Gerald Schroeder, nevertheless there is something here that I must be missing. I simply don't understand this whole argument. Science cannot deal with absolute time (that is from creation). This is because the idea of creation ex nihilo (a physical world created from nothing) is simply unexplainable in the laws of physics. People who research science have no choice but to deal with what they believe to be physical laws. (Note that science cannot define absolute truth.) And yet the concept of a universe that creates itself whether it is the creation of life or the creation of the stars as put forth by atheists defies all logic. The Torahs account of creation deals with absolute time, which science cannot do. And there is simply no logical reason why the concept of relative time cannot exceed that of absolute time, which is what we have going on. Note that every cycle whether it be the frequency of a ray of light or the moving of the sun around the Milky Way is reciprocal to time (relative time). The Torahs account of creation is of a universe created block by block, which is anathema to science. That is if you allow yourself to be influenced by the philosophy put forth by atheists. The creator need not be compelled to create a universe with the laws of physics. Look at the works of Rabbi Yitschok Arama who quoted from Rabbi Leib Ben Gershon who lived during what historians have labeled the Golden Age of Spain. The same irrational philosophical arguments put forth against the Torah that existed then still exist. The only difference being that our understanding of the physical laws of nature are much greater than they were 6 centuries ago. Meaning that the battle has just widened.

(88)
Charles King,
November 12, 2010 12:52 AM

Red shift = expansion of space?

As I heard it, the red shift results when a celestial body is moving away from the observer. It's light's version of the doppler effect. Why is this being equated with an expansion of space, when simple velocity would produce the same effect?

(87)
A. Robert Sheppard M.D.,
October 26, 2010 4:02 AM

audiobooks

Dr. Schroeder, an audiobook version of your books would be wonderful for those of us who eye sight has faded with the years. Any chance that might happen?

(86)
Anonymous,
October 6, 2010 3:12 PM

God's creating time

When I read the article I remembered what I sensed in my spirit a thought that said more simply--God spoke everything into existence in a mature form. Animals, man, why not the Universe? So it would appear old to us, but not be old from God's perspective. He gave us terminology to use for our understanding. And knowledge for us to start digging and know Him. Thank you for explaining this.

(85)
Scott,
September 14, 2010 9:03 PM

Parity and Approximations

I find the basic concept here very intriguing, and feel like I would be able to digest it better if the Talmudic and scientific sources were presented with more equality. The exegesis of the Talmudic information can be off-putting to one who has not studied Judaism extensively; and on the other side, the scientific numbers are presented with an air of exactness and authority that is difficult to justify. For example, someone like myself who is more familiar with science than with Torah, may hold his own confusion against the Talmudic sources. On the other hand, a reader more comfortable with the Torah than with modern science may not know where further inquiry into the scientific claims is needed. The likely result is that readers with different viewpoints will diverge further while also strengthening their convictions, and my understanding of this article is that it actually wants to accomplish the opposite.

(84)
DaveRomero,
August 15, 2010 6:47 AM

Wow

im speechless, that's tremendous.
i dont understand why this info has been locked down, or at least i can say very few people knew it. thanks for this.

(83)
Patrice,
August 14, 2010 11:06 AM

Wonderful

So glad I stumbled across this article. You have just - very simply - pulled together proof of the what and the why of the disparities of theological time and scientific time. And it's just the way my father told me so many years ago. God's time is not human time. Thank you!

(82)
Michael,
August 12, 2010 1:38 AM

I needed this

Been really struggling through scientific, atheistic, rationalism, and faith for the past few years. This is a breathe of fresh air.

(81)
Sam Brown,
June 2, 2010 6:24 AM

Six days?

If a day can refer to an extended length of time, then what does "6 days" mean (Exodus 20:11)? Is there any ancient example in Hebrew of a number attached to the word "day" meaning anything other than a literal 24-hour day? Sam

(80)
Anonymous,
April 4, 2010 3:20 AM

carbon dateing is not perfect

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

(79)
Mary,
March 10, 2010 7:30 PM

Deut. 29:29

Very interesting article Dr. Schroeder.
After reading it and other comments I was reminded of Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."
Trying to unravel the secret things of the Lord can be so mind boggeling to me. I'm glad the Lord has revealed the law and the One who fulfills it.
I look forward to more stimulating articles - thank you

(78)
Boris,
March 3, 2010 5:32 PM

Henry Feldman...

The author did not claim that human being as a species have only been around for 6000 years. Rather, it is 5770 years since the creation of Adam's soul. "But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana commemorate the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. We start counting our 5700-plus years from the creation of the soul of Adam." He continues, "That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam..."

(77)
Boris,
March 3, 2010 5:24 PM

Naftali Klein ...

Naftali, your statement: "so even if a dinosaur was born the first day of the world creation, when we calculate her age based on radioactive decay it will show only 6000 because the first 6 days even it is in our clock billions of years but on the dinosaurs clock it is still only 6 days" is conceptually flawed. The dinosaurs and the Carbon 14 decay that was used to date them were both part of the time we experience here on earth (ie, the dinosaurs clock is the same as our clock).

(76)
Henry Feldman,
December 28, 2009 2:30 AM

Some things just can't be squirmed out of.

So human beings have only been around for less than 6000 years?! Maybe Adam (and the rest of the Torah), like the birth of the universe, is also an allegory. If not, it's obviously just plain wrong -- and then why revere it? I don't suppose that anyone seriously believes in a God that has planted false evidence because he, she or it enjoys fooling us.

(75)
Eliezer,
December 16, 2009 9:21 PM

Mysteries of the Creation - Rabbi Dovid Brown

Have you read Misteries of the Creation (Targum Press 1997). Rabbi Brown presents an alternate, radicaly different explanation that also covers many related points quite 'simply'. How can the world 'start' in Nisan and in Tishrei? Why are there fossiles in strata? etc.

(74)
Naftali Klein,
November 11, 2009 10:17 PM

Still not a answer

I will ask the question using quotes from this article,
you wrote,
"A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old."
So now we have evidence that the world is at least 150 million years based on radioactive decay calculations,
then you wrote
"Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she's 11 years and 3 minutes."
so even if a dinosaur was born the first day of the world creation, when we calculate her age based on radioactive decay it will show only 6000 because the first 6 days even it is in our clock billions of years but on the dinosaurs clock it is still only 6 days

(73)
Raymond,
October 28, 2009 4:12 AM

I haven't even finished your article and I have to BOW to you already!

I don't usually resort to slang, but you've blown my mind with this article.

(72)
Elida Reyes,
October 2, 2009 7:53 AM

The Age of the Universe, is this a book you wrote? I would like to purchase it, as I read the article, I was able to percive a little more creation and it's connection regarding Einstein's theory. It was wonderful reading!

(71)
Frank Cox,
September 13, 2009 8:22 PM

Days

There is nothing bizarre about describing a day using the qualifiers morning, evening, and first , second etc. unless you have already given science' authority over God's word.
It is somewhat unusal but there is a reason for that. God wanted us to know . It makes perfect sense when seen in the light of Exodus 20 8-11 why God would say it that way. There is no occurrence in Hebrew , or English for that matter, that day along with anyone of those qualifiers means anything but an ordinary day. God used all 3 so we would not follow the vain philosophy of the pagans which the idea of millions of years is. All atheists have to believe in millions of yearsfor philosophical and religius reasons , Bible believers do not. There is much more evedince pointing to a youne earth, if you can logically call 6000 years young, than an olfd one, it is simply ignored.

(70)
Wassabi,
July 24, 2009 1:53 AM

Wondering?

With time explained from outside of the created universe (time being slower from the Six day view point), can you tell how large God or Heaven is?!

(69)
greg hill,
June 10, 2009 9:10 PM

!!

Absolutely Fascinating! I''ll be buying the book tomorrow...now consider the following - I like to crunch numbers:

six million million days
average synodic month = ( /-)29.5 days
29.5 x 13 moon cycles = 384 days
so
6 million million/384 = 15.625 billion years,

Walla!

(68)
Ricardo,
May 30, 2009 2:43 PM

To tony

Hubble Ultra Deep Field is (an image of) an area of the sky. The Hubble sits around the Earth, not flying into space. The farthest man-made object from the Earth is the Voyager 1, which is a merely 0.00137571872 light-years away (87ua, or 14 hours at light speed). It will take roughly 200.000.000.000.000 years to reach the "edge of the universe" at current speed, and by then it will have expanded even more.

(67)
Anonymous,
April 12, 2009 2:54 PM

Rigorous Statistical Analysis of Genesis Creation

Look in: "Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew" (revised edition, 2008) for a scientific analysis, by rigorous statistical analysis, of the six days of creation. Simple and straightforward!

(66)
LEB,
April 7, 2009 11:54 AM

Time to mass ratio?

So does that also explain why the more time goes by, the fatter i get? M=CC?

(65)
John,
January 29, 2009 9:43 AM

references to 10^12 number

I'm trying to do the calculations myself - but I find no references to this (see below) - can someone point me to references that definitively explain this:
"Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation) of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension."

(64)
william goodman,
January 18, 2009 8:20 AM

Dirac's unitary hypothesis is another take

I read in S.A. that when Dirac saw that the length of time it takes light to cross the diameter of the hydrogen atom divided into the known age of the universe (in the appropriate units) equalled one,or was a ratio of 1:1, he was intrigued and eventually hypothesized that all fundamental physical phenomena were so related. Shema yisroel indeed. The fractal (or scalable)nature of his first observation is echoed in both the holographic universe (again S.A.)and in the causal dynamical triangulation implications of scientific observation itself.

(63)
Tony c,
December 15, 2008 9:12 AM

All bets are off - 78 billion light years away

The genesis account speaks only of the earth in any time frame as in days (periods). None of those periods needs to have to same length. The first time periods (Hebrew "day") could logically be longer then the latter ones.
So it should be noticed that universe and its age is never part of the time frame given in genesis record. It is a continual process and even one with renewal cycles. The star we have now is not stamped with an age and is it thought there may have been more of then before because stars create the higher elements and they could not have come from this star our sun.
The ultra Hubble deep field is now at 78 billion light years away and counting.

(62)
SANJAY,
December 8, 2008 10:03 AM

Length of Biblical Day

This is one of the best articles I have read on the topic.
I totally agree with the author that the period of one day in Genesis is an abstraction. In fact, I believe that even the descriptions of each day of Genesis from one to six are all abstractions - and very brilliant ones at that.
I also have my own contribution to make on the length of the Biblical day.
It goes like this: If the age of the universe is truly about 13.7 billion years old as scientists have ascertained and if God truly created the universe in 6 days, as inspirers of the Bible have ascertained, then
each Biblical day should be
13.7 billion years (13.7 x 10e9) / 6 =
2.283 billion years long.
Does this period of 2.283 billion years make sense in terms of modern science?
It does.
Take the example of our Sun and Moon which Genesis says were created on Day 4.
Science pins down the appearance of our Sun very accurately to
4.6 billion years ago
and the appearance of our moon to about
4.4 billion years ago.
When does Genesis say the two appeared?
It places the Sun and moon’s appearance at
13.7 billion years – (2.283 billion years x 4 days) =
4.568 billion years ago.
This is an exceptionally fine correlation with the scientific
derivations of 4.6 and 4.4 billion years ago
for the Sun and moon respectively.
Similarly, 18 scientific parallels, descriptive and numerical, fall beautifully into place with the entire chronology of events described in Genesis - if the words for heaven, earth, water and light are understood as abstractions. Please see www.undeniableevidence.com

(61)
Abbas,
November 7, 2008 5:08 PM

Thinking?

SO, thinking slows down and speeds up with time as well? or is the soul independent of time, matter and energy?

(60)
Lonnie,
October 12, 2008 2:05 AM

What about death?

According to scripture death entered the world AFTER (the result of) the sin of Adam and Eve. Is it the author's position that billions of years of creation passed and nothing that was created prior to Adam and Eve (and their disobedience) ever died?

(59)
sarah,
October 4, 2008 8:52 PM

huh?

i sill dont' understand when what was the event that causd year one of the jewish calander?

(58)
David,
October 1, 2008 10:56 AM

You missed a spot.

It is all well and good to say that the age of the universe is approximately 13.7 b.y.o. if one considers solely scientific data, or 5700 or - years old if one approaches the calculation from a literal interpretation of scripture and Dr. Schoeder has put forth a well-thought-out argument in an attempt to reconcile to two. However he left out a key component.
How old is the universe? As of this day, October 1st, 2008, the universe is 15,762 days old. What is this figure you might ask? How did I arrive at it? That is how old I am, and I am the center of my observable universe.
I approach the question in much the same way Descartes did in that:
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me, and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25, CSM II 16–17)
therefore the only thing provable to self is self. (Though this in itself is somewhat flawed as revealed in kant's discourses and would be more accurately stated that the only things provable to self is "self" and "other than self.") So not only should it be "I think, therefore I am," it should also be "I think, therefore you are." Since there is no way for me to prove to myself that the universe had any basis in reality before I was able to observe it, the universe cannot be proven to be older than I am. In his discourse, Dr. Schoeder states, "The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in on earth. That's Einstein's view of relativity." What the good Dr. failed to include is that, according to relativity, no two objects may occupy the exact same coordinate in space-time, so "we" in the above is false. At any given point in space-time there can be only "me" or "you."
Now fast forward from Descartes to Immanuel Kant. In his attempt to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, he states in Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, "In order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins." John Chaffee in The Philosopher's Way explains it thus: "As a result, the sensations of immediate experience onform to our minds, rather than the reverse." (First edition page 122) In other words, every second of every hour of every year we exist we take in sensory data and use that data to each of us construct our own reality. This is what I meant by "self and other than self." There must be "me" and there must be an origin for this sensory input.
Now enter cutting edge research in quantum physics and the double-slit experiment. I will not go into the details of the experiment since a google search can find you enough information to read, but the gist is that electrons, which have a measurable mass, will behave exactly as a photon which is massless...right up to the point where the electron is observed, at which point the electron, for lack of a better word, solidifies into discete particle with measurable properties. John Gribbin, in his book In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, sums it up this way:
The observation that crystalizes one ghost out of the array of potential electrons is equivalent, in terms of wave mechanics, to the disappearance of all of the array of probability waves except for one packet of waves that describes one real electron. This is called the "collapse of the wave function," ... that the rules that prove so reliable in the design of lasers and computers...depend explicitly on the assumption that myriad ghost particles interfere with each other all the time, and only coalesce into a single real particle as the wave function collapses during an observation. What's worse, as soon as we stop looking at the electron, or whatever we are looking at, it immediately splits up into a new array of ghost particles, each pusuing their own path of probablities through the quantum world. Nothing is real unless we look at it, and it ceases to be real as soon as we stop looking.
In other words, I create my reality (read: universe) just as Dr. Schroeder creates his own and just as you, whoever you are, create your own reality, following the rule that no two observers can occupy the same point in space-time.
In short, whether the universe is 13. whatever b.y.o. or only 5700-ish is irrelevant as it can have no real impact on the 15,762-day age of my universe.

(57)
Anonymous,
August 24, 2008 2:55 AM

7

Where does the seventh day fit in all of this.

(56)
Daniel,
July 24, 2008 10:21 PM

16 vs. 13.7 billion years

I have created a spreadsheet based on your theory and, you're right -- it matches up VERY well with paleontololgic and geologic time scales when the Universe is ~16 billion years old. I am trying to reconcile the newest WMAP data that say the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. What is your take on this?

(55)
ami,
June 1, 2008 4:59 AM

reponse to a post

(5) matt 12/16/2006 2:18:00 PM
numbers don''t add up
I''m not sure what you mean by your calculations of the actual time meant by the biblical 6 days matching up with the scientific fossil record. Your estimate that the sixth day when man was created puts man on the scene around 250 million year ago, which does not agree in the least with current accepted scientific dates (homo sapien sapien came about around 200,000 years ago, not 250 million). Science always wins the debate with theology when logic and reason are prerequisites.
-------------------

it does not mean homo sapiens arose 250,000 million years ago.

firsty, homo sapiens are linked to the austra line which goes back 4 million years ago and further that that other relatives dating back to 6-8 million years ago.

however, the animal line which gave rise to mankind would have some of its evolution occuring over day 6, not at the beginning and certianly not mankind at the beginning of that day, in fact we see, man is one of the LAST creations on that day!

(54)
ami,
June 1, 2008 4:59 AM

asah/bara/yatsar

it is also interesting to note that God used a THREE-FOLD creation process for mankind:

Then he BARA (something from nothing- the spirit, which is what rosh hashanna commemorates)

then in Genesis 2 ONLY MANKIND (or ADAM) get YATSAR. The other animal life does not get YATSAR.

Also intersting is the bara and yatsar are in future tense, as something to come, something not finished yet, a perfecting of our spirit.

(53)
erez,
March 12, 2008 10:58 AM

universe is endless- thoughtfull questions please comment if possible

it seems that some stars in the galaxy are 13 bilion years old maybe at the farest part of the galaxy...if the big bang theory is true so all matter should have been thrown out of some point and somehow spread equaly through the universe, one thing is that it make a border to the universe cause something should have brought that blast into being something which is in the core of the blast and something that is outside the core of the blast... like tnt would not explode if there wasnt air sourounding it if u light tnt in space it would not explode couse there is not air for it to "eat".so in order that there would be a blast, something should support this blast from the outside? if all the universe was in this blast...what was outside of it?... and this is also a part of the universe. so this theory is very very childish... see?anyway they say some stars in the galaxy are 20 milion years away if there was only one blast and not a continuing movement of spreading how come that galaxies are so far away and not moving at the same time at the same speed?and it seems, that as further u go inside space (as a star(or galaxy)) fastest is u'r going, so some parts of the universe are younger that the others cause it took them some 20 milion light years to reach where they are (from a certain point...) so it profs that the universe is living... i mean there is a process of like a fountain in which everything evolves from... right?its like a birth place wich is exploding all the time...not exploding but like a resorce!!!that is living all the time. and as further u go as u'r older, as a galaxy or a star, u driving away from this spring and obviously u will die eventualy maybe after some bilions of years but this spring keeps on.

(52)
Ilan,
October 25, 2007 2:50 PM

You can't disprove it

"God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim."

I am God. You can't disprove it.

(51)
ralph a. kern,
June 25, 2007 10:29 PM

earth vs universe

Shalom; why do folks always say that the earth and the universe have to be the same age? The word tells us when God created the earth, but who is to say that He didn't create the universe long before that? thanks and Hashem bless...

(50)
shimon,
February 24, 2007 2:39 AM

you gotta believe!

interesting correlations...just 2 notes: after G rested on the 7th day the bible says:these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that G made earth and heaven---this is a simple connection between generations and the day...

next, the physical Adam was created after the seventh day when he was formed out of the dust--this makes the homosapien calculation indeterminant--although, assuming G went back to work on day 8, this would make Adam ~62.5my---which does conform to the early primate fossil estimates---would this would make Adam a primate? Tetonius homunculus?---this is for another discussion...

(49)
Jon Knox,
January 10, 2007 11:21 PM

Interesting, to say the least.

I would like to say congratulations to Dr. Schroeder on a very well thought out argument. Second, I would like to silence some of the critics, whose comments I have read. Dr. Schroeder is correct in his assessment of the Big Bang Theory and its connection to Genesis. I have written a small paper on the subject myself, and can say with confidence, that the theory is sound, and so is his argument. Those that doubt this are more than welcomed to examine the evidence for themselves. If one wishes, they can ask the editor for my email address for the information I have on the subject, or you can look it up by yourself. Just be aware that the majority of the information is tainted with philosophical arguments and point-of-views, which make it hard to gleam the empirical data. That is why I offered my services, because I already got the data out of the "taint".

Thrid, I have read the comments, and would like to say a few things about them. 1. There is the matter of dark energy. We cannot describe it yet, because it has not been studied. As was said, we lack the instruments to study it, but we can still study its effects on the universe. This is reasonable, since we have done it before, with gravity. Before we had instruments that could study it directly, we studied its effects, hence Newton's law of Gravity. Now, come Einstein, and by merely thinking about it, he gave our modern understanding of gravity. 2. The Big Bang Theory, while perhaps not complete(which leaves room for the unknown), is the best theory for the evidence. If one studies the other theories for the beginning of the universe, which nearly all scientists now say that it did have a beginning, they fall incredibly short of answering how it began. Not only that, most are supported by mere assumptions and others go completely against known facts of science. These are not to be glorified as an answer or evidence against the Big Bang, the only reasonable, by the evidence, would be the String Theory, which as Michio Kaku said, is "Not supported by a shred of evidence." Also, the Big Bang was created to explain the evidence, not based on some preconceived assumption, nor was it the first thing they turned to, actually it was the last, because the theory would require a Designer. Now, as to being some priest's theory in a new form, is a completely false statement made by ignorance of the theory, not that the one whom made it is ignorant in any way. 3. As for numbers not matching up, The Torah/Bible does not say at what point in the day he made man, in jewish tradition, if I am not mistakena nd recalling correctly, any part of the day counts as the whole day. 4. Anyone that is thinking about using evolution as a rebuttal needs to realize that an increasing number of scientists, not just Christian/Jewish ones, are questioning it, and for good reason. It is no longer a good hypothesis, nonetheless, a theory. It should have died out ten years after Darwin introduced it. That is how long ago evidence surfaced to refute it. It is philosophical in nature, not scientific. Now, there is micro-evolution, which is a misnomer, it should be referred to as adaption, it it merely provides change within a genus, the second to last level on the Linnean scale. For example, canines come in many differnet species, but they are all canines. There is no evidence inside or outside the fossil record to indicate anything beyond adaption, such as, macro-evolution.

So, in summary, Dr. Schroeder's theory is sound, though it could use work perhaps, as any theory could do with, or it could be complete as is, only time will tell.P.S. Dr. Schroeder, if you read these, I would enjoy being able to ask your opinion on several matters, Thank You.

(48)
matt,
December 16, 2006 2:18 PM

numbers don't add up

I'm not sure what you mean by your calculations of the actual time meant by the biblical 6 days matching up with the scientific fossil record. Your estimate that the sixth day when man was created puts man on the scene around 250 million year ago, which does not agree in the least with current accepted scientific dates (homo sapien sapien came about around 200,000 years ago, not 250 million). Science always wins the debate with theology when logic and reason are prerequisites.

(47)
UziGittler,
November 26, 2006 10:01 PM

Excelent article

Congratulations to Mr. Shroeder it helps s a lot to understand the matter

(46)
John Velko,
November 20, 2006 9:10 PM

Big bang is a theory

Your writing is very interesting, and provides good support between Genesis and the Big Bang.

But the Big Bang is not fact, it is a theory. Perhaps your readers should consider the following.

It was first proposed in 1927 that the Universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. The person who developed this theory was a Catholic priest. So it is little wonder Catholicism readily accepts the Big Bang, as do many branches of Judaism, because it supports the proposition of a "beginning".

At the core of your writing, you have placed as much faith in the Big Bang theory as your belief that Genesis is the word of God.

So if the Big Bang theory is proved false (which is possible given the anomalies that presently exist), what will that mean for the Book of Genesis?

(45)
BrettA.Bland,
November 1, 2006 1:15 PM

Creation of man on the sixth day.

Following this line of though. Wouldn't this mean that when God created man (Adam) on the sixth day, (from his perspective)that 1/4 of a billion years would have gone by here on Earth. How does this correlate with the 6000 years supposed from Adam to the present. A second question. What is black energy and what would the light be that God created and seperated from the Dark (black energy). Finally, how many days would have to go by in God's perspective to equal a thousand year here on earth. Thankyou. Brett Bland

(44)
FaraiQ.Malianga,
October 1, 2006 10:32 AM

Brilliant and God inspired analogy.

Most persons(including some scientists}do not fully grasp E=MC2 and should read this article (better the book)to understand the relativity of the Bible (excuse me Torah)and modern Science. In the Bible there is mention of the Ethiopian (roughly "can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin"-etc.) What is the origin of the "human races" both biblically and scientifically as this classification has given rise to much human suffering?

(43)
Dan-B,
September 11, 2006 2:15 PM

Would you wait 13 billion years for a relationship- if there was another way?

Remember, Time is Relative, 6 days to God could be Billions of Years to Us.Why would God Not Use Relativity? Why would He Wait Billions of Years?

I think there is your ultimate answer, both science and the bible could be correct.--Relativity--

first of all, the math doesn't add up. Scientists claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years. But more fundamental are the assumptions that they make. They are looking for the best theory that doesn't require a Creator. They rule out all global floods or any other drastic changes from their analysis. This is called the uniformitarian principle.

Since evolution (and I'm not just talking about biological) requires billions of years, and since evolution is better than all other atheist theories (atheists have no problem with the big bang), scientists need to come up with a way to get the billions of years and they do that by interpreting the data in the uniformitarian framework.

The assumptions drive the conclusions but we challenge those assumptions. The Torah says that everything was created. But while it makes to say that Adam was created as an adult and not a fetus, it doesn't make sense to say the universe was created to look old. We must look further beyond the first chapter for an answer.

The Torah states in many places that the universe was stretched. After Adam's sin, there was a deterioration in the world. Then there was a global flood which drastically changed the world and accounts for the fossils. Then there obviously was another deterioration since lifespans decreased. So we can clearly see from the Torah why we should expect the universe to look older than it really is.

(41)
Duncan,
July 3, 2006 12:00 AM

The Seventh day?

So then I conclude the seventh day is one eighth billion years. Are we still in the seventh day, or could we be in day eight? (A new cosmological week?) Or even later? any ideas on this?

(40)
J Boeckman,
June 22, 2006 12:00 AM

It's about time!

Finally! I accidently stumbled upon one solution, for which I've been long-searching. It's about time! Thank you.

(39)
E Slack,
June 6, 2006 12:00 AM

Really enjoyed this piece

Came here from JewFaq.com while looking there for information on the Hebrew Calendar. I really enjoyed the article on the age of the universe.

Thank You

(38)
c jensema,
May 8, 2006 12:00 AM

time

Without change there is no time , We have time only as long as there is change . If the earth rotated faster , time wold be faster. The Bible says when tyime will be no more , we will never grow old . no change , no time .

(37)
Curt Diemer,
February 17, 2006 12:00 AM

response to wishing wanting

Richard Dawkins quote is more philosphical than comsmological. Depressing is actualy what it is. And the anonymous author's own wishing and wanting doesn't make the quote any more "true" than others. It does reveal a man with no external "purpose."

The facts seen from scientific observation are increasingly revealing an extremely delicate, intricate biosphere located in a extremely rare peaceful and safe niche of an extremely dangerous universe among dangerous universes. This biosphere (earth)which is teeming with life is also perfectly located within this universe and solar system to observe and study the rest of the universe from a safe and "good view" perspective. And only one species of life on this earth is capable of such study. If the orbit on this flying biosphere/observatory were off by mere inches all life would cease and observation of the universe would not take place. That all of these things happened by chance with no designer, takes more faith than I personally can muster. And how ironic is it that some members of this species observe only disorder in all this. Instead I intend to use my short time to observe the universe which is clearly one of the purposes of the system's designer. I choose Purpose vs. No Purpose.

I bet annonymous also consider's himself an environmentalist. Does he approach the environment with the idea that there is no good, no evil, only pitiless indifference?

abraham,
December 1, 2011 11:07 PM

dawkins is narrow-minded and haughty

dawkins is ill informed, narrow-minded and haughty

(36)
Anonymous,
December 15, 2005 12:00 AM

wishing/wanting doesn't make it true..

good quote from Richard Dawkins:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

(35)
Herbert Dotzler,
October 22, 2005 12:00 AM

Most Fascinating Revelational Approach.

Dear Dr. Schroeder,

I have purchased, read, and found extremely rewarding your book: The Hidden Face of GOD.

Now, I stumbled upon this associated article: Book of Genesis from a Nuclear Physicist Viewpoint - while on the Web - from a link on an article concerning the Hebrew Calendar. And again, I find very rewarding how in this article you seem to have connected the dots between the Old Testament and modern Cosmology! This is spell-binding thought!
So, I wish to tell you that I am greatful to you in your expertise in helping to clarify certain cosmology-related questions that have been on my mind ever since earlier studies of Relativity during my undergraduate effort in Physics.

I have been in contact with Dr. Freeman Dyson on the subject of the observable portion of the universe and mentioned that it seems that we can only view a conical portion of it as we peer back into time,
(assuming the universe is spherical in nature).
I would be grateful for your response on this if you have the time to critique it (will forward it to you if you wish).

I'm now thinking that after reading how you further explain the red shift in your article - due to the stretching of both space and time - that this would probably require a change from the classical way one imagines the shape of the observable portion of the universe. Assuming the universe is spherical in nature, as we look backward in time to "interior surfaces of reality" we are also looking at different "tempos of time passage" so maybe it's hard to form a picture of this.

Dr Dyson mentioned that it's quite amazing how clearly we can do this inward peering without any noticable obstructions.

Thanks for taking your time to read this, ... and oh yes, thanks for keeping God in the picture!
I agree that an informed mind makes it hard to be an atheist.
M. Behe's book called "Darwin's Blackbox" is another eye opener.

Sincerely,

Herbert Dotzler
Minneapolis, MN

(34)
Jamie Pack,
August 28, 2005 12:00 AM

evolution

Science and bible disagree according to most- but perhaps they do, agree. God may have created dinasaur and man. God may not have explained this to man but that does not make it untrue. God could have created dinosaur and decided to create something else, killed off the dinosaur and made man. The bones are here but religion does not answer why they are here. This is because god did not have it written into the bible for us . Your article on the universe and time relating to the bible can account for the dinosaur bones being here.This would prove both science and religion to be correct, in some cases. Of course we make the best gueses at what is true and therefore we do make mistakes. I disagree with the whole ape to man theory. When a species evolves, its preexhisting form dissappears. Ape and man both exhist. If we came from ape then ape would have died out because creatures evolve to survive changing enviornment, therefore apes would not exhist any longer. Both could have been created by God and not be one from the other.If I have confused you on my theory or if you disagree please write back your view on this. It is mym little shot in the dark on how our world is here and both science and religion both have truths to them but we have not quite made them connect.

(33)
Greg,
August 22, 2005 12:00 AM

Assuming

This artical is highly reliant on assumptions. Science is not full of assumptions, theories are. For example: the Big Bang theory and the Evolution theory all rely on assumptions. Not a good way to get your point accross. Might want to use some facts next time.

Cheers,
Greg

Daniel Kasnitz,
October 1, 2011 11:31 AM

Hypothesis rely on assumptions

Actually, I think it is hypothesis that rely on assumptions. A theory must have some amount of verifiable back-up, as do both evolution (with significant assuredness) and the big-bang (with noticeably less assurance.)

(32)
Ashley Crow,
August 16, 2005 12:00 AM

WOW

Ever since I have been interested in astronomy and biology, I have been confused. I have been an active Christian all my life...so this deeply complicated my life. I realize that this could not be true, for no one on our earth has ever answered any of "the life questions". I have always tried to match the two up. I can remember when I was a little girl driving at night to dance and I asked my dad, "Why does the bible say Earth is so young and dinosaurs were here before it even started?" And I can remember my father saying to me, "Well, Ashley, maybe one second to god is like a million years to us..." That has always been my theory base in which I talked myself into the fact that God may have told the first humans what happened on his watch, but billions of years had passed by on the six days. Thus bringing dinosaurs and other life forms into the big picture. This made me think in a whole different perspective. One of my dreams is to become a scientist and never lose my religion. This is a truly inspirational article. ~Ashley,15

(31)
Eliyahu Sammy (Mumbai - India),
July 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Excellent

Dear Dr Schroeder
I have read a few explanations regarding the age of the universe and stark reality that Torah confirms it before our modern day science did, I must say you have done an excellent job by elucidating the facts in the most lucid manner. HATs OFF TO YOU. In your own special and unique way you too are spreading the light of Torah on many ignorant people. I look forward to many more articles from you on such subjects.
Shalom

(30)
Franklin Kywi,
July 1, 2005 12:00 AM

Congratulations

A very good atempt to explain somthing that worries everybody, the arguments are good.

(29)
Victor S. Coquilla,
June 7, 2005 12:00 AM

Science can be explained by GOD, the creator.

A wonderful, setpwise eductation for people from all walks of life who have been puzzled about the universe. who ever thinks that science and religion can be linked together?

(28)
Evan Davis,
May 21, 2005 12:00 AM

Simply incredible

This is, as the title above ^^^ says, simply incredible. This sheds so much light and new ideas on to this subject. Thank you very much for this great piece of work!

(27)
John Martin,
May 7, 2005 12:00 AM

Most informative

Thank you, Dr. Schroeder for this thought provoking comparison of science and the torah. Over the years I have reviewed the story of the creation and have always believed that it was a parable of the so-called "Big Bang Theory."

(26)
Bill Paracka,
April 26, 2005 12:00 AM

A phenomenally brilliant dissertation. Thanks.

From the time I began to hear of the Big Bang, I have had conflicted thoughts about the Bible, Genesis and modern Astronomy. Dr. Schroeder, you have lifted a veil from Genesis which is absoluteley unprecedented in its veracity and beauty. It is not possible to thank you enough. I am forwarding this article to everyone on my eMail list. May God bless its message to all who read it.

(25)
Robert Bell,
March 24, 2005 12:00 AM

Age of the universe

Perhaps the answer to the apparent age of the universe is simple.

An oak tree would have appeared to be several hundred years old when it was created. Adam could have appeared to be 100 years when he was created.

The universe would have been created as a mature universe as well. How old does a mature universe appear? Maybe it is 15 billion years old.

(24)
Bruce,
March 22, 2005 12:00 AM

My thoughts exactly!

This was my rebuttal to a very Christian, creationist freind of mine a number of years ago. I wasn't as persuasive or well documented as your article, but I did make him start to ponder the thought. So, here we are on day 7, while God rests and watches his creations evolve and change. Thank you and God Bless!

(23)
DJ,
March 21, 2005 12:00 AM

Thank you so much.

Amazing.

(22)
Anonymous,
February 28, 2005 12:00 AM

Facinating

This article will go to the top of my list of favorites when dealing with the age of the earth controversy.

I am always interested in the "day" arguments from both old and young earth creationists and the distinction highlighted here between day one and the others is nowhere to be found in the debate. Indeed, a survey of english translations found none that use the term "day one". Some use "one day" and most, as the article indicates, use the incorrect "the first day". I feel the distinction which the article points out makes things much more clear.

(21)
Merlock,
February 26, 2005 12:00 AM

Hmm.

Wow. That's amazing AND confusing!

(20)
Robyn,
February 18, 2005 12:00 AM

WOW ... SO AMAZING!!!

Wow!!! This article is so insperational. I love the way it explains everything in easily understood terms and gives comprehensive examples. It's so great to see how Science backs up the Bible... really puts chills in the spine and joy in the heart. It's amazing how as time goes on people are able to prove scientifically the existence of God (even if some scientists may think they're doing the opposite). Thanks for publishing this article on-line and sharing the knowledge and wisdom.

(19)
Anonymous,
February 1, 2005 12:00 AM

The Torah is the great scientific puzzle.

Hello and thank you for a very stimulating and comprehensible article. I have always loved the way the Torah can be all things to all people given its multiple layers, and this article and the attendant comments are indicative of this. For some it is the search for scientific evidence, for others the Torah can be accepted without "proof" and for others the Kabbalah is the "truth". For others yet, it's linguistic analysis. All are layers are found in the Torah, which must in itself be proof that man could not have written it. I do have one question on the article. You mentioned that time attaches itself to matter and stretches or contracts accordingly. But the first paragraph of the Torah would indicate that time was created before matter. Also, in a latter chapter, G-d set the limits of man's time on earth, not his size. Is it possible that matter has attached itself to time, and that it is time which stretches and contracts? Is there any scientific evidence proving the direction of causality? (I'm sorry, I haven't read your book and you may have answered this in your book).

(18)
noah,
February 1, 2005 12:00 AM

so glad

i'm so glad this article was revised in accord with recent rabbinic decrees! thank you for being aish!

(17)
Chava,
February 1, 2005 12:00 AM

WOW!

This article is amazing.. I didn't follow each and every thought (I'm not very science-oriented) :) but very very cool article, that I sent to some friends.. I want to read that book now!

(16)
Cheryl,
February 1, 2005 12:00 AM

THIS IS THE MOST AWSOME ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ !!!!!!!!!!! More like this would be so appreciated!!!!!

(15)
Anonymous,
January 31, 2005 12:00 AM

It is a very intresting work, i'll show it to my family.

(14)
Amy,
January 31, 2005 12:00 AM

This makes sense

In an "discussion" with a fundamentalist Christian (my mistake...why bother), I was berated for presenting similar views. Dinasaurs are only 6000 years old. No such thing as Carbon dating. It is a scientific conspiracy. We learned these theories in Hebrew School and it works for us. Who can say how long a day was, "in the beginning..." Within this context evolution makes sense...it all happended before man. Thanks for a great article.

(13)
Barbara Ballast,
January 31, 2005 12:00 AM

I agree with the 5700 year age of the earth. God has handed us eveidence on a silver platter with the eruption of Mount St. Helen in the state of Washington. The geologists found layers formed in seconds or minutes after examining the evidence after the 2nd eruption. These layers are like what is found in the Grand Canyon. They also found trees behaving in the same way as petrified trees in the Grand Canyon. It didn't take millions of years as supposed previously. I enjoyed your article.

(12)
C.R.SCOTT,
January 31, 2005 12:00 AM

awesome

thank you for this article. very informative for study. but that which spoke to me came spiritualy. i love Torah.this is as a kiss to my lips. thank you-thank you so very much.

(11)
Ernesto Spira,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Very interesting work. I will show this paper to my students in the Tanach class which I have.

(10)
Ya'aqov Abrams,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

conflicts between Torah and Science

I have read Genesis and the Big Bang. Dr. Schroeder presents a convicing argument that HaZaL have transmitted the tradition accurately. It is no contradiction to listen carefully and respect the Hachamim, while at the same time acknowleging the discoveries of modern science. When there seem to be a conflict we usually have to be patient and wait until science catches up.

(9)
Avraham Sedaghat,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

A day is 24 hours

When the Torah says day at the end of the 5 books it means a 24 hour period, so how is a day at the beggining of genesis not 24 hours? We celebrate shabbat every 7 days, not every 7 millenia or more. G-d created a finished world in 7 24 hour periods. Looking back the world looks older because it was created finished. Thus on day 1 it could potentially look billions of years old, just like Adam looked 20 years old when he was 1 day old. Nevertheless this doesn't change the age of the universe from 5765 years. Compromise or apolegetics is not a proper thing. When one speaks the wholehearted uncomprimised truth, it enters the hearts of others.

Anonymous,
February 20, 2014 8:35 PM

Re Avraham: A day is 24 hours

You appear to have misunderstood the article. Schroeder is saying that the first 6 days, until the creation of Adam's neshema, really ARE 24 hours in length, from the perspective of creation. But from the perspective of the Earth, which is what science investigates, this was billions of years. Schroeder's point is that these are NOT contradictory. For why this is, re-read the article.

(8)
warren bone,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Bravo! Best explanation I've ever read on this subject!

By far, this is the most interesting explanation of the mystery of Torah vs Science regarding the "beginning" and age of the universe. Finally, I feel like someone (a scientist even) has given us the truth.

I might just have to buy the book now!

Shalom,
warren.

(7)
Herman F Blumel, Jr,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Dr Schroeder's article is amazing and very important. By the way, I already have his book "Genesis and the Big Bang"

(6)
Elaine Millen,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Eureka!

I have never read such a thorough and understandable explanation of this discourse on time/Torah/beginnings. I have argued quite a bit with folks that our understanding of a day in the creation of the world was not like those which we understand today. In those "days" - humankind did not exist to put constraints on how we view a day. I am saving this one in my Jewish Education file on my computer. I thoroughly enjoyed it and can't wait to share my thoughts with others. You are superb and kept me captivated. And, not being a scientist, you explained things in a way that made it easy for me to follow. Now, that's a mark of an excellent teacher.

(5)
Dunash,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

It all depends on if the Theory of Relativity is correct

If the Theory of Relativity is correct, than Dr Schroeder's ideas are appealing.

If however, like an increasing number of scientists are now saying, that Relativity is incorrect, then evidence such as the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the complete dearth of any human record or artifact older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the non-organic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy, pleochroic haloes etc etc, all indicative of an astounding recency of creation, and showing that the less than 10,000 year old universe given by the Torah may be absolutely correct, rather than just relatively!

(4)
Chaim Radnan,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Creation of Darkness

I don't know the source, but in davening every day, we say (after Bor'chu) the blessing 'the Former of light and the Creator of dark'. One would have thought that it would be the other way round. However the possuk clearly states that darkness is a creation. Without going into the cumulative evidence, a recent science programme on cosmology concluded that there is a black or dark energy source which has remained undetected because no instrument has been invented that could detect this energy, but certain physical phenomena can only be explained on the hypothesis of its existence. Furthermore, it passes unhindered through every physical form. This is a further example of how scientific discoveries can find credence by reference to Biblical passages.

(3)
Don Burton,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

My heart burned within me as I read......

My heart burned within me as I read Dr.Schroeder's exerpt from his new book. I have read Genesis and the Big Bang a few years ago. And I was so blown away by his walking the Scripture and science fact side by side. As a Christian,I always felt science should be a testimony for the Bible, and God Bless Dr. Schroeder for making it so. Thank you for this forum. Sincerely, Don Burton

(2)
Josias Schon,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

The age of the Universe is not a simple topic

Dear Sirs,
The age of the Universe depends whether the uphievals that occured to destroy prior worlds in accordance with Kabbalah have cause a break in the so called "age". The Gemara in the second perek of Chagigah talks about "974 Generations" that belonged to a prior world. The "Tiferes Israel"'s famous speech translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does reference the existance of three prior worlds that were destroyed before this world was created. The periods of time that these worlds existed is not known. The chemistry of prior worlds, or for that matter, the chemistry before the Mabul, is an unknown quantity. Therefore Carbon 14 dating or any other methodology may not be effective in establishing the age of the Universe.

(1)
Zoe,
January 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Grateful

I had a theory very very similar to this one a few years ago, I was pretty much laughed out of the room, told it was total rubbish. I am so grateful to you for researching this topic and uncovering this, wonderful wonderful work.

We have a canistel (or eggfruit) tree our backyard which we’d like to get rid of. We do not eat its fruit, and the fruit and leaves make a constant mess. I haven’t found anyone who is interested in its fruit – even to take it from us for free. I would like to replace it with an orange tree (we live in Miami). Is there any problem doing so?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah actually writes specifically that we may not cut down fruit trees (Deuteronomy 20:19-20). From this the Sages learn a more general principle that one may not purposelessly waste or destroy anything of value – food, good utensils, clothes, etc. (see e.g. Talmud Baba Kama 91b, Shabbat 140b).

The Talmud (Baba Kama 91-92) distinguishes that whenever there is a legitimate reason, one may cut down a fruit tree – if it damages other trees or plants, if it’s not productive and not worth its upkeep, if it’s more valuable for the wood, etc. The commentators include in this dispensation when ones needs the space the tree is growing on (Rosh Baba Kama 8:15).

There is, however, a frightening line in the Talmud there which makes people much more hesitant to rely on the above leniency. Rabbi Chanina stated that his son died young as a punishment for his cutting a fig tree before its time. Thus apart from the legal issue of destroying a productive tree, this law appears to carry with it severe Divine retribution.

Most authorities explain that this punishment is incurred only if a person cuts down a fruit tree without legitimate reason, but there is a minority opinion that it is incurred even if the tree is cut with good reason.

As a result, even in cases where a legitimate reason applies, people generally take an extra precaution of first selling the tree to a non-Jew, and having a non-Jew do the actual cutting. (The entire prohibition does not apply to non-Jews.) Your case is also better in that you are cutting one fruit tree to plant another, more productive one. Even with all of this, it’s preferable, if possible, to leave a part of the original tree intact.

In 1942, Hitler devised a plan for a Museum of Judaism, to remember the dead Jewish religion, culture and people. Millions of Jewish treasures -- Torah scrolls, ritual objects, books and art -- were looted by the Nazis and taken to warehouses. In Czechoslovakia, the objects were taken to the Jewish Museum in Prague, where the Jews themselves were forced to sort, label, and pack the items for use in the Nazi's future museum. After the war, many of these items were recovered, including thousands of Torah scrolls and nearly one million books. These were distributed to Jewish communities worldwide, as a living testimony to the indestructibility of the Jewish people.

One who humiliates another person in public ... even though he may be a scholar and may have done many good deeds, nevertheless loses his portion in the eternal world (Ethics of the Fathers 3:15).

Imagine a situation: you have a fine home, a well-paying job, a comfortable car, and a substantial retirement annuity. If you do a single thoughtless act, you will lose everything you have worked to achieve: home, job, car, and savings. What kind of precautions would you take to avoid even the remotest possibility of incurring such a disaster? Without doubt, you would develop an elaborate system of defenses to assure that this event would never occur.

The Talmud tells us that everything we have worked for during our entire lives can be forfeited in one brief moment of inconsideration: we embarrass another person in public. Perhaps we may say something insulting or make a demeaning gesture. Regardless of how it occurs, the Talmud states that if we cause another person to turn pale because of being humiliated in public, we have committed the equivalent of bloodshed.

Still, we allow our tongues to wag so easily. If we give serious thought to the words of the Talmud, we would exercise the utmost caution in public and be extremely sensitive to other people's feelings, lest an unkind word or degrading gesture deprive us of all our spiritual merits.

Today I shall...

try to be alert and sensitive to other people's feelings and take utmost caution not to cause anyone to feel humiliated.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...